About Me

Name: Lady Logician
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Sample Resolutions Part 2

Here is another sample resolution (HT DeputyDot).  This one should be filed under Section 8 - Making Government Better - Not Larger. 

Resolution for Photo ID
WHEREAS; the right to vote is given to United States citizens by our constitution, Minnesota citizens deserve the knowledge that their elections are fair and honest; and
WHEREAS; there is documented voter fraud throughout the nation, non-citizens have registered and voted in Minnesota. Minnesota’s current election law allows non-citizens to get through the system to register and vote; and
WHEREAS; requiring photo ID at the polls will simplify the requirements for voting and thereby encourage more people to participate; and WHEREAS; requiring photo ID will provide an opportunity for underprivileged Minnesotans to get a bank account and more with a state-issued Photo ID; and WHEREAS; Minnesota makes no exception requiring photo ID to buy over-the-counter decongestants, cigarettes, liquor, and to board an airplane; and
WHEREAS; Minnesota’s current election law allows vouching with no proof from the potential voter of their identity or residence in order to vote; and WHEREAS; Minnesota’s current election laws provide few reliable methods to verify a voter’s eligibility; and
WHEREAS; a state-issued photo ID is necessary for most everything in our world; therefore be it
RESOLVED that the Republican Party supports legislation requiring all voters to show a state-issued photo ID in order to establish eligibility to access a ballot for voting in any federal, state, or local election held in Minnesota.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Precinct Caucuses - What To Expect

Dorothy Fleming has a 6 part series up on her website that goes through what to expect when you go to caucus on Tuesday and beyond. For those of you that don't know Dorothy, she is deputy chair of the MNGOP, but she is also a grassroots activist extraordinare. Prior to her election to the deputy chairmanship, she was a senior advisor to Rep. Michele Bachman's campaign.
 
One of the most important things of note in the series (part 5) is a link to downloadable version of the resolution form and a sample resolution. For those of you who are going to caucus on Tuesday, download a copy of that form and have your resolutions pre-written when you go. It will save you time and your caucus convener will thank you for it!
 
Go read the entire series and be prepared for caucus night!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Resolutions

We all make resolutions of one sort or another.  I would like you to consider making a few resolutions that will hopefully help direct where the Republican Party of Minnesota heads in the next few years.
 
As I have written before, the resolution process starts on Feb. 5 at your precinct caucuses.  Today I am going to start sharing a few suggestions for resolutions that can be submitted on Feb. 5
 
HEALTH CARE RESOLUTIONS (courtesy of Logical Lady Sue Jeffers)
 
Individualized Medical Treatment - Opposing Rationing
Whereas, the physician is professionally and ethically obligated to treat each patient as an individual;
Whereas, Congress passed legislation in 2003 establishing a pilot “pay-for-performance” program to pay doctors more if they comply with government-issued treatment protocols for Medicare patients;
Whereas, members of the Minnesota Health Care Transformation Task Force are pushing pay-for performance initiatives including the recommendation that “purchasers and payers should refuse to pay for care that does not meet the standards” set by government-established committees;
Whereas, the Minnesota Health Care Transformation Task Force recommends that the legislature establish an appointed, unelected, unaccountable board to define “an essential value-based benefit set for health insurance” that only includes “necessary, evidence-based care”;
Whereas, the Minnesota Health Care Transformation Task Force points to England’s rationing protocols as an example and is recommending that new medical technologies, services and medications not be used or paid for unless a government-established committee says they “improve value;”
Whereas, the Minnesota Health Care Transformation Task Force is recommending that government and health plan reporting on doctors’ performance “should focus on the extent to which the provider complies with evidence-based guidelines for care”;
Whereas, there is no one-size-fits-all “evidence” or treatments, and those who decide which studies qualify as “evidence” will not know or care about the patient who will be impacted by the decision;
Whereas, the lives of patient are at risk of medical decisions becoming politicized, and patients becoming subject to the agendas, biases, and values of powerful individuals outside the exam room:
Therefore, be it resolved that the party platform on Civil Rights support “Strengthening the patient-doctor relationship, banning the implicit practice of medicine by health plans, government agencies, and government-established committees.
Therefore, be it resolved that the party platform on Civil Rights support "Encouraging cash-based medical practices and the restoration of true medical charity for the protection of patients and the preservation of medical ethics.”

No Universal Health Care - No Health Insurance Exchange
Whereas, the Minnesota legislature enacted a universal coverage mandate for 2001;
Whereas, the Governor-appointed members of the Minnesota Health Care Transformation Task Force recommend that all citizens be required to purchase health insurance by 2011;
Whereas, an individual insurance mandate by government empowers government to set the rules and define what kind of health care will be available, to whom, by whom, for how long, and where.
Whereas, the Minnesota Health Care Transformation Task Force supports Governor Pawlenty’s proposed Minnesota Health Insurance Exchange and recommends that it be used to do research on the uninsured and run education and outreach programs so “all citizens are aware of their responsibility to obtain health insurance coverage”;
Whereas, all individuals and employees of small businesses will essentially be required to purchase health insurance through the Exchange;
Whereas, the Exchange will be a government-established bureaucracy that will lay the foundation for a government-imposed universal health care system;
Whereas, the Exchange and the individual mandate will impose intrusive tracking and policing systems on the people of Minnesota; and
Whereas, the people of Minnesota have a right to not use their hard-earned dollars to purchase a consumer product that is increasingly at too high of cost for too little benefit or value:
Therefore, be it resolved that the party platform on Civil Rights support “Securing the right of all Minnesotans to be free from government-imposed health care systems and universal coverage policies that violate individual rights under the U.S. Constitution and endanger individual access to medical care.”

Online Medical Records – Patient Consent Required
Whereas, the 2006 legislature mandated computerized and online medical record systems to disclose, link and exchange private patient medical data;
Whereas, a Minnesota Health Information Exchange has been established in Minnesota for the sharing, linking and access to all medical records;Whereas, the 2007 Minnesota legislature weakened patient consent requirements for exchange of private medical data and the federal HIPAA privacy rule allows broad disclosures of information without patient consent; and
Whereas, the Minnesota Health Care Transformation Task Force recommends that “providers be required to implement and use electronic medical record systems and systematic patient tracking systems as a condition of payment”; and
Whereas, state-imposed medical record data systems allow access to comprehensive patient data without patient consent, exposing patients to loss of medical privacy, delayed access to medical care, loss of trust in the confidentiality of their care, and crimes such as identity theft and the emerging dangers of medical identity theft:
Therefore, be it resolved that the party platform on Civil Rights support “Requiring informed written patient consent prior to online storage, access, sharing, disclosure, exchange or transmission of private medical records information.”

Access to Health Insurance Markets Outside of Minnesota
Whereas, the Minnesota Health Care Transformation Task Force and the Minnesota Legislative Council on Health Care Access are recommending the establishment of “medical homes” or “health care homes”;
Whereas, the medical home is proposed as a doctor or clinic responsible for all medical decisions, including referrals to specialists, and eventually responsible for the total cost of care of the patient in the “medical home”;
Whereas, the Minnesota Health Care Transformation Task Force recommends financial inducements to doctors to encourage them to offer to be a “medical home” for patients, as well as financial and other inducements to patients to choose a medical home arrangement;
Whereas, the Task Force states that health insurance plans might require consumers to pay more if they choose to switch medical homes or health care homes frequently; and
Whereas, medical home represents a new version of the old HMO gatekeeper system, where the primary care doctor received a capitated payment per patient, and was encouraged to restrict access to specialty care and medical services:
Therefore, be it resolved that the party platform on Civil Rights support  “Opening up the health insurance market to insurance companies and insurance products outside the state of Minnesota to encourage competitive pricing of health insurance and open access to a comprehensive market of medical professionals and health care services.

State Compliance with Genetic Privacy Law
Whereas, the State of Minnesota has been retaining the blood (DNA) of all newborn infants for 10 years without legislative authority;
Whereas, the State of Minnesota has been providing newborn blood and DNA to genetic researchers without parent consent, parent knowledge, or legislative authority:
Whereas, a state genetic privacy law was passed in 2006 requiring informed consent for government retention and use of genetic information, including baby blood and DNA;
Whereas, an administrative law judge in Minnesota ruled that the newborn screening law must follow the informed consent requirements of the 2006 genetic privacy law, but the Minnesota Department of Health has not yet complied; and
Whereas, the Minnesota Department of Health attempted to exempt the newborn genetic testing program from the state genetic privacy law during the last days of the 2007 legislative session and is expected to try again during the 2008 session; and
Whereas, newborn babies are newborn citizens who will become adults with government-stored DNA in only 18 years:
Therefore, be it resolved that the party platform on Civil Rights support “Requiring the newborn genetic screening program to comply with the informed consent requirements of 2006 Minnesota Genetic Privacy law.”

Informed Patient Consent to Share Patient Data
Whereas, patients have a right to medical privacy, and a confidential patient-doctor relationship;
Whereas, the federal medical privacy rule (HIPAA) is actually a data-disclosure (“no-privacy”) rule and does not protect privacy;
Whereas, the 2007 legislature enacted a law allowing the creation of a master “Record Locator Service” allowing every doctor, dentist, psychologist, health plan, hospital, pharmacy, laboratory, X-ray facility, government health program, and clinic to send private patient data to a central data base without patient consent;
Whereas, the Record Locator Service law does not require patients to be informed that anyone given access to the Record Locator Service will be able to see a comprehensive micro medical history of that patient;
Whereas, the Minnesota Health Care Transformation Task Force recommends that “providers be required to implement and use electronic medical record systems and systematic patient tracking systems as a condition of payment”;
Whereas, Congress specifically gave state legislatures the right to pass strong medical privacy laws that overrule the many data disclosures allowed by HIPAA;
Therefore, be it resolved that the party platform on Civil Rights support “Strengthening Minnesota patient privacy laws to require informed written patient and parent consent.”
 
Use the existing platform as a guideline for writing resolutions and follow the directions in my previous post on how your platform resolutions should fit into the platform.  If you are really concerned about the direction of the MNGOP today, then get busy because this is where it "gets done".
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's "Our" Message?

Found this on the website of Minnesota 2020, the website of Matt Entenza's new think tank.

It's pop quiz time, folks. Question #1: what's the progressive message? Question #2: what's the conservative message? Question #3: Was question 1 or 2 easier to answer?Unfortunately, the answer to question 3 is question 2. Everyone knows the conservative message: no taxes, no gay marriage, no immigration, and no abortions. The conservative message isn’t the problem.
Well now obviously author John Van Hecke either has not been paying attention to the Republicans campaigning for President or he doesn't care that he is flat out mis-representing the Conservative position.  So of course, I feel the need to debunk just a few of these misconceptions.
 
Let's start with the first misconception...that we are against all taxes!  We are not against taxes, we are against the the idea of punishing people for hard work and success by taking away half (or more) of their hard earned income.  We are against the taking money from group A and giving it to group B.  We are all for paying for the things that government SHOULD be spending money on....things like roads and bridges and national defense.  We are all for paying money to cities to plow roads and provide police and fire departments.  We are even perfectly fine with paying money to the state to provide a "safety net" for those times when people are "in need".  What we are against is taking money from someone who works 50-60 hours a day and giving it to someone who is able to work but refuses to do so.  We are against taking money from a single mom with two kids in daycare and giving it to a mom who stays home but expects the government to feed and clothe and house her kids! 
 
The second misrepresentation is that gay marriage is an issue this year.  Not one of the candidates running - not even Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee is campaigning on this.  They are campaigning on national security and economic policy and yes even the Iraq War.  Not one word on gay marriage.
 
The 3rd misrepresentation is that conservatives are "against immigration".  We are not against immigration.  We are all for immigration....LEGAL IMMIGRATION where the immigrant files the appropriate paperwork to get the right student or work visa.  We are for the fair treatment of those who play by the rules and we don't want to see the cheaters rewarded for cheating the system.
 
The final misrepresentation is that we are campaigning on abortion.  Now I watched every single minute of the last two debates and the only time Roe v. Wade was brought up the candidate who was asked the question rightly responded that it is settled law and until that changes there is not much he can do about it.  Now it is true that conservatives are working to change that law, but it is because we want to make sure that the most innocent among us - the unborn children - have the same rights to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the rest of us enjoy.  Again - it is only fair....
 
Now if Minnesota 2020 wants to run a campaign against conservatives that is based on issues that we are not campaigning on, that is their choice.  However, they should be aware that we will vigorously continue to push the real issues that we are campaigning on...tax equity, national and economic security and true equal rights for all. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bubba Versus Troofer

This is great video (click on Clinton Speech Part One).  A 9/11 Truther interrupts the very beginning or former President Clinton's stump speech for Hillary in Denver yesterday.  It was a stellar example of the former President at his campaigning best. 
 
My favorite part was when he said "we let you speak and shout me down....not I get to answer!"  Bravo Mr. President!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hold On To Your Wallets

So I get this email today......
 
Minnesota Legislature to reconvene Feb. 12  
The Minnesota Legislature is scheduled to return for the second year of the 85th session at noon, Feb. 12.
According to the State Constitution, the Legislature is allowed 120 days over the biennium in which to get its work completed. Last year, it took 75 legislative days, leaving 45 days for this year's work.
Legislators must complete their work by the first Monday after the third Saturday in May, or May 19.   Traditionally, the second year of the biennium is commonly known as the "bonding year" and is reserved for consideration of investmentin capital projects. Local units of government, higher education systems and state agencies have submitted proposals totaling more than $3billion. However, to stay within debt service guidelines, the general obligation bonding cap is likely to be around $965 million, an amount the governor has proposed. Once the February Economic Forecast is released, the bonding number could be adjusted.  
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-Mpls) and House Majority Leader Tony Sertich (DFL-Chisholm) have announced committee deadlines in the House. They are:
March 14 - committees act favorably on bills in the house oforigin;
March 19 - committees act favorably on bills or companions that met the first deadline in the other body; and
March 28 - committees act favorably on major appropriation and finance bills.
Committees are to meet as scheduled in the afternoon of the first dayof session. However, no committee meetings will be held before 3 p.m.Feb. 13 due to Gov. Tim Pawlenty's State of the State Address in St.Cloud.  
An Easter Break is tentatively scheduled from 5 p.m. March 19 to noon March 25.
Information about the legislative process and the Minnesota House of Representatives can be accessed through the House Web site atwww.house.mn.

Well now that got me to thinking.....for you see I seem to recall quite a few committee meetings that have happened over the course of the summer and almost daily after the 35W Bridge Collapse!  They have met to discuss adding a special council (to investigate the bridge collapse), they met to
discuss health care access (with a focus on universal healthcare), they met to discuss natural resources, they met to discuss energy development, they met to discuss ending poverty, they met to discuss a myriad of other issues.  The Minnesota HOUSE conducted 240 committee meetings over the course of the "off session".  That averages out to 34.28 meetings PER MONTH!  And they are not in session!!!!!
 
If, as the email suggests, the Legislature is required by law to only meet 120 days per bienium, then why are we paying them per diem for the number of days that they are legally bound to be in session.  If they are not in session and they choose to meet - fine - it's on YOUR DIME.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Heading Right

The folks at Heading Right will be live blogging tonight's GOP debate and I will be joining them for the first time!  Please join Captain Ed, Fausta, Rick Moran, Jazz (my co-host at Mid Stream Radio and I as we dissect the debate, discuss winners and losers and try to pick up on the catch phrase of the night.  I'm sure that a good time will be had by all.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blame and Fading Memories

Last week the Red Wing Republican Eagle ran an editorial cartoon that took their State Senator to task for some rather intemperate comments that he has made in recent months.

 


Aparently Senator Murphy  took umbrage with the cartoon (HT Jason Lewis) and he fired off the following letter to the editor of the Republican Eagle.

Your recent cartoon depicting me in a Nazi uniform crossed the line of basic decency. Even to a politician, this is unacceptable. As a Marine, I saw no humor in it. As the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, I can only say you are doing your readers a terrible disservice by continuously towing the Republican line and viciously attacking anyone with a different opinion. To set the record straight, I have never explicitly or indirectly blamed the governor, Lt. Gov./Commissioner Carol Molnau or any MnDOT employee for the I-35W bridge collapse. Have I called for Molnau’s resignation? Yes, I have been for over a year. But I have done so for a host of reasons, none of which is blame for the bridge tragedy.



SCREEEEEECH!!!!! What - you have never explicitly or indirectly blamed the Lt. Governor/MNDOT Commissioner???? Perhaps you should re-read the editorial that you wrote for the Star Tribune last November....

When asked who chose not to reinforce the I-35W bridge with steel plates, Molnau said "of course I'm not the one making the decision" and said engineers and "bridge people" had worked with the firm that recommended the reinforcement. McFarlin went so far as to call out the state bridge engineer by name as the one ultimately responsible for this decision. This attempt to push accountability from the top of the agency down demonstrates the clear lack of respect these individuals have for MnDOT employees.


So by his own words, the head of MNDOT (that would be Lt. Governor Molnau for those of you from St. Paul) should be responsible for the failing of the engineers to appropriately reinforce the gusset plates on the I-35W Bridge!

Please Senator Murphy - do not insult the intelligence of the electorate in this manner. In this age of You Tube and Google, it is too easy for any schlub with internet access to find this information. Kinda like I just did!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Good Intentions?

There is an old saying about the road to hell and what it is paved with. Last Tuesday, Jazz and I did a show on health care options. Since both of us take more of a free market approach we were castigated by one emailer as being cold-hearted (ok there was a little more to the description but it is not suitable for polite company). I suppose, if the emailer is correct, then maybe we are a little cold-hearted. After all Jazz and I were opposing a system that makes pregnant women wait 10 months for a slot in the maternity ward. We are opposing a system that telling doctors to with hold treatment for the old and unhealthy in order to maintain costs. After all - they MEAN WELL when they have government give out "free" health care. Surely the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition and the NEA don't want old folks to be denied health care any more than the want disabled children denied health care....right?????
I was sent this article in relation to the pending Breed Ban that Rep. John Lesch is proposing this session. The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) has a long history of fighting this kind of legislation. However, the study that they quote has a larger implication.
 
A landmark study published last year in one of America's most respected scholarly journals provides powerful evidence that "feel-good" legislation – indiscriminate and/or unenforceable bans, as well as draconian sanctions applied to behavior that is already illegal – degrades respect for law and reduces compliance, while aggravating (or at best, failing to improve) the problems these laws were supposedly enacted to solve.

The study specifically addresses gun laws in the U.S. and worldwide. "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence," by Don B. Kates and Gary A. Mauser: Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 30, pages 651-694. But its broader point supports a central reality that has long been recognized by the National Animal Interest Alliance: whether lawmakers target pet owners or gun owners, ill-conceived "feel-good" laws usually just make things worse.

 
Emphasis mine.  I understand that the folks at the GMHCC really want to help....they want to make it better for those without health insurance.  I GET THAT....what I don't get is why people like our emailer just don't get that rationed health care - such as they are seeing in the UK and in Canada are worse!  They simply don't get that it will lead to something much worse than what we have today....a system where people with chronic diseases are shuttled off to institutions and left to die...with minimal care because that care will cost the government too much.  Can someone please tell me what is "compassionate" about that?
It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences it is something that we really need to be aware of the next time we want to do something in order to "feel good".
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What To Do To Make A Change

There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth (both here and elsewhere) about Governor Green Jeans and his slavish devotion to the religion of man made global warming. There has also been much wailing and gnashing of teeth (both here and elsewhere) about the leftward drift of the Minnesota GOP.  Which leads to the following question...what do we, the average voters, do to try to exert some influence over the Governor, the Legislature and the party in order to "correct" the problems that we see?  I am sooooooo glad that you asked!
 
First thing you have to do is get to caucus on February 5!!!!  That is the first and most important step.  During the course of the night, platform resolutions will be discussed. Platform resolutions is the way that the grassroots activists have to tell the party what issues are important to you!
So how do you submit platform resolutions? At caucus, you will find a newspaper like hand out that contains the platform (an online copy of it can be found
here). Go through the platform first to see if there are not already resolutions in the platform that govern what you are talking about. There may also be one already on the books that can be modified to help refine the point. On the back of that newspaper like hand out there will be a form that you can use to submit your resolution (you can also submit it on a regular sheet of paper). All platfor resolutions must fit into one of the 9 existing platform planks.

1)      Creating Jobs and Economic Prosperity
2)      Preserving Our Civil Rights
3)      Educating our Children
4)      Strengthening Families and Communities
5)      Protecting the Public’s Safety
6)      Strengthening the Rule of Law
7)      Enjoying & Protecting our Natural Resources
8)      Making Government Better, Not Larger
9)      Defending America at Home & Abroad
So you have a resolution in mind and you want to submit it. You have checked and it fits under platform plank #1.
Section 1 - Creating Jobs and Economic Prosperity: Controlling Taxes,Spending,
and Regulation
Republicans believe that limited government is the best government and that free enterprise is the best path to prosperity for all Minnesotans. We support reducing taxes, spending and regulation to create business opportunities for our hard-working families and businesses. Therefore, we support:
You take your piece of paper or Resolution for and you write in your resolution "Support Hardship waivers for statewide smoking ban. " Or suppose you want a platform resolution to stress that government should not be telling citizens what lightbulbs or cars that they can or can not use because of their impact on global warming. Well you could certainly offer a clarification re-write of Section 7 O
O. Adoption of an energy policy that encourages Research and Development of alternative forms of energy by private initiative.
 
or you write your own.....

If you go to caucus with the idea of writing a platform resolution, you need to make sure that your contact information is on the resolution (so if the BPOU Resolutions committee has questions about your resolution they can ask you) and you will want to make sure that you are elected to be a delegate to the County/BPOU convention. That way you will be able to advocate for your platform resolution on that level. You will probably want to make sure that you are a delegate to the Congressional District convention as well...for the same reason. If your resolution makes it out of the Congressional District Convention it goes on to State and if it passes at State....it's officially part of the MNGOP platform!
Caucus goers have the power and the opportunity to change the direction of the party. What issue concerns YOU the most? Me.....I think I feel a global warming platform resolution in the works.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Faint Praise

Yesterday, the New York Times endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary.  Today they are doing their darnedest to tear her candidacy apart!  In addition to the editorial that I talked about here, they have an Op-Ed piece on why a "co-presidency" is a bad thing!
 
SENATOR Hillary Clinton has based her campaign on experience — 35 years of it by her count. That must include her eight years in the White House.
Some may debate whether those years count as executive experience. But there can be no doubt that her husband had the presidential experience, fully. He has shown during his wife’s campaign that he is a person of initiative and energy. Does anyone expect him not to use his experience in an energetic way if he re-enters the White House as the first spouse?
Mrs. Clinton claims that her time in that role was an active one. He can hardly be expected to show less involvement when he returns to the scene of his time in power as the resident expert. He is not the kind to be a potted plant in the White House.
Which raises an important matter. Do we really want a plural presidency?
 
Now there is a certain historical lesson to be learned here and Professor Emeritus Willis goes into the Founding Fathers reason for a singular Executive in great detail...detail that the Junior Logician has been reminding me of as he studies the founding of the Union in his History class.  These are lessons that we all need to remember going into each and every election.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More Life Changes

As you may have guessed from my last post (especially if you got to it via True North) there have been a couple of new additions to my life.  I have become a co-host of the Blog Talk Radio (BTR) program "Mid Stream Radio" with Jazz Shaw (a New York Republican/Independent) and Ron Beesley (an Oregonian Democrat).  I come in on Tuesday and Thursday to talk about politics from a Conservatives point of view.  BTR has group blogs on the right and on the left that their policital hosts all contribute to.  The "conservatives" blog is Heading Right and as a host I am now a contributor.  It is a great honor for me to be blogging with the likes of Captain Ed, Fausta (Fausta's Blog), Pamela (Atlas Shrugs) and Rick Moran (Right Wing Nuthouse). 
 
Not all of my posts from here will be posted at Heading Right (or True North) so if you don't read either blog you won't miss any of my content.  However, there may be group debates and live blogs (especially of the debates) on Heading Right that will not be transferred here.  I would encourage you to add Heading Right to your reading list though as there are some fantastic contributors there.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Rise of the Machine

The Clinton attack machine that is.  Yesterday, on MidStream Radio, Ron, Jazz, Joe Gandleman and I talked about the Democrats and what has become a rather nasty race for the Presidential nomination.  The nastiness has been especially prevalent from former President Bill Clinton who has pulled out all the stops when it comes to attacking his Hillary’s opponent.   It has gotten so bad that even some of his most ardent supporters are not-so-quietly telling him tocool it“.  What I find to be amusing is that the Obama camp apparently did not expect this to happen.
 
Asking for donations of $50, she (Michelle Obama) wrote: “In the past week or two, another candidate’s spouse has been getting an awful lot of attention. . . . What we didn’t expect, at least not from our fellow Democrats, are the win-at-all-costs tactics we’ve seen recently. We didn’t expect misleading accusations that willfully distort Barack’s record.”
 
Ask anyone who has politically crossed swords with the Clinton’s and they will tell you that the “win-at-all-costs tactics” are what the Clinton’s do best.  That is how they survived scandal after scandal.

Joe brought up a great point yesterday that will bear watching.  All of those who are currently decrying the use of these tactics against Senator Obama need to ask themselves one question.  Will you consider this kind of campaigning “OK” once it is directed toward the Republican candidate?  If you answer yes, then you simply should not be surprised to hear “hypocrite”  

UPDATE AND BUMP:  Jonathan Chait in the LA Times wonders if the "right is right on Clinton"...
 
The big turning point seems to be this week, when the Clintons slammed Obama for acknowledging that Ronald Reagan changed the country. Everyone knows Reagan changed the country. Bill and Hillary have said he changed the country. But they falsely claimed that Obama praised Reagan's ideas, saying he was a better president than Clinton -- something he didn't say and surely does not believe.
This might have been the most egregious case, but it wasn't the first. Before the New Hampshire primaries, Clinton supporters e-mailed pro-choice voters claiming that Obama was suspect on abortion rights because he had voted "present" instead of "no" on some votes. (In fact, the president of the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood said she had coordinated strategy with Obama and wanted him to vote "present.") Recently, there have been waves of robocalls in South Carolina repeatedly attacking "Barack Hussein Obama."
 
Of course Chait would never utter the words that we were right on Bill and Hillary.  Most likely if he ever did he would be pilloried by his fellow lefties.  However, he is starting to see what most of us on the right saw 15 years ago.  That Bill and Hillary will slime anyone in order to gain power.  Welcome to the club Jonathan!

UPDATE NUMBER 2!  HT Capt EdThe New York Times gets into the act!
 
Bill Clinton, in his over-the-top advocacy of his wife’s candidacy, has at
times sounded like a man who’s gone off his medication. And some of the Clinton
surrogates have been flat-out reprehensible.

Excuse me....I'll get back to you on this just as soon as I can stop laughing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Translating Political Language into English for the Common Folk

From Logical Lady Sue Jeffers
 
In the land of ten thousand taxes and fees, left-leaning legislators of both major political parties govern us. Minnesota consistently ranks among the highest taxed states in the nation. The business climate and job and housing markets look bleak. Government expansion, regulation and intrusion are reaching a breaking point.

For the most part, Minnesotans go ahead with their daily lives blissfully unaware of the grisly details of government’s operation, with only a vague notion of the larger situation based on sound-bites from the nightly local newscast.

This legislative session, the big issue is transportation. “Transportation” is has become a buzzword, and a dangerous one at that. For most of us, transportation is an automobile, so when we hear government officials talking about transportation, naturally, we think of congestion, roads and bridges. Bridge safety is a powerful new concern in the public consciousness that easily comes to mind when transportation issues are mentioned.

When politicians hear and use the word transportation they do not mean roads and bridges. They use transportation as a catchall term, often used by design, to obfuscate the truth.
 
Furthering the obfuscation this legislative session  will come in the form of diversions like, who takes the blame for the bridge collapse; firing the DOT commissioner;  compensation for the bridge survivors and is the NTSB credible. Knowing there’s a great big pile of money at stake, all interested parties are queuing up to get their piece of the government pie.

While it is important to understand the problem, diversions and possible solutions, it is even more crucial that we understand the terminology. Let’s start by clarifying words that politician’s use and what these words really mean.

“Transportation”
- They really mean light and heavy rail transit, buildings (like a bicycle station with public showers for dirty cyclists, for example), bike paths, nature trails, buses and then, if there are any scraps left over, roads and bridges.

“Comprehensive transportation package”
- This definitely doesn’t mean roads. This means even more money spent on light and heavy rail and various transit buildings instead of roads and bridges. Whenever you hear “comprehensive” and “package” coupled together with any other word or phrase, there is also a plan to raise taxes bundled into that “package.”

“Maintain fiscal discipline”
– This means 8-10% spending increases for the state budget, when inflation is around 2% and taxpayers are seeing less and less real return for their work. Only in government is this called fiscal discipline.

“Appropriate levels of funding”
– See above. Yes it is yet another way to say “tax increase.” We will never hear how much is “enough” because there will never be enough, they will always need more.

“Reasonable gas tax increase”
– This can not exist without spending reform and accountability first. Any gas tax increase is regressive and hurts families and small businesses the hardest. Ironically it doesn’t matter that 57% of the public does not support a gas tax. What they mean by “reasonable” is the highest amount they could get away with at the moment.

“Multi-modal system”
– I so love it when we come up with fancy new terms. Translation: trains, trams, trolleys, light and heavy rail transit. Maybe a bike path. Roads and bridges are definitely not the priority when this kind of language is used.

“Revenue Raiser”
– Easy one (and also a Democrat favorite) This is just a fancy way to say “tax increase.”

“Real money”
– This one is my favorite. Minnesota has a general fund budget of $34.5 billion. That is just the starting point, our legislators spend much more on top of that. This is apparently not “real money” to them. Real money really means a tax increase.

“Quality of life issue”
– Politicians love feel-good words. This one is often used to justify - you guessed it - tax increases. More of our “real money” can then be wasted on solutions we already know won’t solve the problems of congestion and safety.

“Bipartisan agreement”
– Hold onto your wallets! This means that all sides agree on the plan to best stick it to the general public and they now have even more of our money to waste on the latest boondoggle.
The outrageously expensive transportation legislation of 2007 that included a metro-wide sales tax increase, a gas tax increase, and a “wheelage” tax (translation: a new tax on your vehicle, “just because”) and a license tab fee increase. It will be reincarnated bigger and more expensive in the 2008 version.
The general public is about to be inundated with a PR campaign pushing costly, wasteful and unproductive non-solutions. Of course, they won’t call it that. They’ll call it “A bipartisan plan for improving our quality of life through a comprehensive transportation package that maintains fiscal discipline and raises revenue with a reasonable gas tax so our multi-modal transportation system is appropriately funded.

Translation: Big Tax Increases coming in 2008. Congestion and road and bridge safety will continue to deteriorate.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Betraying the Cause

Well, if this isn't interesting.  Maureen Dowd is finally coming around (albeit quietly) to at least one of my complaints about Hillary's campaign...
 
It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line. She handed over South
Carolina to him, knowing that her support here is largely derivative.
 
Seriously, Senator Clinton has been relying more and more on hubby Bill to do her "dirty work".  Is that what "feminist" women do?  Hide behind a man when the going gets tough?  Oh heck no!
 
As I said before, Senator Clinton is setting the feminist movement back 60 years.  We need a real woman to represent us.  Any takers?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive