Where'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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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".

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.

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.

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 to “cool 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” coming your way.

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 Ed. The 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.

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.

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.

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?

Trouble on Portland Ave?

There is according to Minnesota Monitor. The have gotten their hands on a memo that was sent out to employees by Publisher and Chairman Chris Harte.

Taking Charge of Our Future
By Chris Harte, Publisher and Chairman
Last fall I told you I would write about our overall situation toward the end of the year. I waited before writing because November ad revenue was slightly better than recent months, and I hoped it was the start of a modestly better trend. But December was right back to the pattern of steep revenue declines that we'd seen since early in the year.
We have budgeted for another large revenue reduction in 2008, and we hope we won't be under budget again. What I'm hearing from other newspapers are similar expectations about further revenue declines.
I don't mean to be gloomy, because I'm basically an optimist. I believe strongly in newspapers and their Internet sites. I believe in the importance of what we do. I believe that we will not just survive but prosper. I believe in the power of the Star
Tribune's people to make the business and cultural changes that will be necessary to right our ship and give our company a vigorous and successful future.
The current business realities are incredibly difficult, however, and I don't want to pretend they aren't. 2007 was far and away the worst year this industry has seen in anyone's memory, and it was also the worst for the Star Tribune. We were not the hardest hit large metropolitan paper in the country, but our overall revenue performance was well below the median for the industry.
A few numbers tell the story well, I think. Total revenue (print and internet advertising and circulation) is down almost $75 million in the last two years. Classified revenue has been the hardest hit part of our business, and our 2007 classified revenue was down over 50 percent from what
it was at the start of the decade.
While our Internet revenue has risen substantially almost every year over the past decade, and is three times what it was at the start of the decade, it's not growing nearly fast enough to offset the declines in print advertising.
We reduced our costs substantially last year, some of it in easy ways but much of it with painful cuts. And we're already reducing 2008 costs several million dollars below our original 2008 budget.
Despite all the cost-cutting, our payroll and benefits in 2007 were actually $10 million higher than they were in 2000, while total revenue had declined over $90 million in the same period. Payroll and benefits are well over half of all our cash operating expenses; the remaining cash costs are newsprint and everything else. Newsprint is the only one of the three major categories where we've had a meaningful drop in expenses, and that's mostly because of a substantial drop in the price we pay per ton. Unfortunately, that price is going way up in 2008. All other cash expenses combined (utilities, office supplies, all the other things it takes to keep us operating) are at almost exactly the same level today as they were in 2000.
As a result of rapidly declining revenue - and expenses that haven't been cut anywhere nearly as fast - our operating cash flow has declined dramatically since 2000. Operating cash flow, which is the cash we have left after paying cash expenses, and which we then use to invest in everything from new equipment and computers to new products, and to pay our debt, has declined 50 percent in just the past two years and more than that since 2000.
Obviously, we cannot continue on this course. We need to deal with these challenges quickly and collaboratively, working together all across the company to find the best solutions.
As a first step toward finding these solutions, we have retained Restructuring Associates (RAI), a consulting firm headquartered in Washington, DC to help us work collaboratively throughout the Star Tribune to get our business on the right track to meet the significant challenges we face. RAI specializes in helping unions and management work together to improve performance. Starting this week, representatives of RAI will begin interviewing Star Tribune managers and soon will interview others involved with the business to get a better understanding of what we are up against and how to frame our approach to finding solutions.
RAI expresses its basic philosophy this way: "We help our clients become high performance organizations and better places to work by engaging employees in solving organization problems and implementing their solutions. By involving people, we build internal commitment to change, generate real solutions, and facilitate implementation." I encourage you to visit their website at www.restructuringassociates.com for more information on how they work with companies to build high performance.
We selected RAI precisely because of its focus on a collaborative approach with strong involvement of employees and union leadership. We have been especially impressed that the firm doesn't have canned solutions or preconceived notions. But it does have an outstanding track record of successfully dealing with complex challenges at many companies across many industries.
Despite all our challenges - and they are huge and obvious - we still have some great competitive advantages and the ability to leverage them. We have a century and a half of powerful brand equity with our readers and advertisers. We are still by far the strongest mediacompany in the market. We have many more journalists than any of our direct competitors - and probably more than all our local competitors combined. We also have more ad sales people and a stronger support infrastructure.
In the past year, we have invested strategically to make our business stronger. Some of these investments have been in new technology - like a state-of-the-art web order entry system, a single copy returns-management system, a predictive dialing system for our call center, and a new sales management and reporting system. Plus we have also invested in our core business, spending significant dollars rebuilding our circulation, adding additional sales reps and instituting a new sales training program. You may have seen my note a few days ago about what we were able to achieve in just a few months with our new Cars website. That's just the most recent example of our incredible capabilities, our competitive spirit and our ability to change quickly.
The fundamental change we are facing is not temporary. Yes, we will try to, and should, regain a portion of our lost revenue when the economy improves. But we don't know how much, and we don't know when that will be. What we do know for sure is that the competitive world has changed permanently and we will fail if we don't change much more than we have already. In today's jargon, we are going to have to reinvent our business.
And this is a matter more of attitude than of resources. Our intellectual capital is huge, and we need to draw upon it to find new ways of operating.
I am absolutely confident we can do that.
I believe our future is bright, and I invested a substantial amount of my own money in the Star Tribune on that belief. I believe passionately in what we do, and I know a huge number of you do, too.
We absolutely have the passion, knowledge and resources to continue as the leading information company in the Twin Cities. But we won't do it by wishing we could go back to the way our business used to be. We must harness the passion that brought us all to the Star Tribune and point our efforts toward reinvention. We are all in
this together.
Thank you for helping move us forward.

Emphasis is all mine. I really take no pleasure in this, but this is a memo of warning. Warning of pending lay-offs. In my 15 years of working in corporate telecommunications I have seen no fewer than 8 versions of that memo and every single one of them was a harbinger of bitter things to come. While the sages of Portland Avenue have no one to blame for this but themselves, I do not take joy in their grief. I would be happier to see a strong Star Tribune...one that actually reported the news, rather than what we have now....one that interjects editorializing into every story. I think I can safely say that this is all ANYONE who lives in Minnesota wants.

THIS is Our Future

This is Minnesota's future if we do not heed the warnings of the ALEC-Laffer report that I wrote about earlier.

BOCHUM, Germany - Thousands of people marched through this west German city Tuesday to protest Nokia Corp.'s decision to close a factory, and a German official warned the move could weigh on Nokia's image and business....The plant closure, which likely will result in the loss of 2,300 jobs, was announced last week and has infuriated German unions, as well as politicians....Nokia has cited the German location's lack of competitiveness as the main reason for closing the plant and said labor costs in Bochum were nearly 10 times those at a Nokia plant in Romania. But that point has irked officials in the region, who argue that labor accounts for a small proportion of overall manufacturing costs.

Emphasis mine...Out of control labor costs, out of control taxes, out of control utility costs, out of control government regulation in business...it all leads to businesses running OUT OF YOUR STATE! Is that really what Minnesotan's want?

Say What?????

Bill Clinton was in Atlanta for a service honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr yesterday. While he was speaking from the pulpit, he recognized and mentioned Mike Huckabee as follows.

I'd like to acknowledge my fellow Arkansan and competitor for the presidential nomination, Gov. Huckabee, welcome we are glad to have you here, sir.

Emphasis mine. This is why Democratic operatives are quietly asking for Hillary's campaign to put Bill back in the closet. In that simple statement, Bill gave the punditry in the Obama camp and on the right a gold nugget. "Nice of him to admit what we all suspected....that he will be the de facto President...the man behind the power..." they are all saying.

Now I fully realize that is not what he said, but it gets to the larger point.....Bill is a loose cannon and has become a liability to Hillary's campaign and if she is going to have any success at all, she will need to stand on her own two feet and not lean on him for fundraising or campaigning at all!

Why We Caucus

Well, since Dave and Ed have both put posts up today questioning why we caucus, I suppose that someone needs to come to the defense of the process. Now I can not speak for those that initiated the caucus system in Minnesota, so I will have to speak to why I am a huge fan of the caucus process.

I moved to Minnesota from a primary state. The rank and file voters were not welcome in the party machine - except to vote or to donate money. As a result, there was always a "Good Old Boys" network that ran the parties. Voters simply were not part of their process. Then I moved to Minnesota and wow what a difference. in 1994, I read a community notice in our local paper that invited everyone to come to caucus. Even though I had a barely 1 year old at home, I was curious enough that I hired a babysitter and I came to cacus. I still remember Richard (our precinct chair) - even though he and his wife moved away a couple of years ago. They welcomed me in and told me to ask questions if I didn't understand something. I asked a lot of questions that night but I came away hooked on the process.

I attended caucuses every two years after that, but it was not until 2000 that I actually "got involved" in the party. At the 2000 caucus I signed up to be a delegate to the Senate District and Congressional District conventions and attended both of them. In 2004, I was asked to be a part of our Senate District Executive Committee as Media Relations Chair (that was the start of the blogging monster!) and two years later I was elected Chairman of our BPOU.

Now that the history lesson is done, on to the remarks.

Ed made one comment over at Heading Right that I simply must refute.

Caucuses benefit party apparatchiks, not candidates and certainly not voters.

Based on my experiences here in Minnesota, he could not be further from the truth. Our caucuses have always bent over backwards to accomodate and include the voters - because we know that they are our base of support!

Ed also remarks on the confusion of Iowa and Nevada. I think Jim Moore of the Minnesota Independence Party hit the nail on the head.

Recently, the term "caucus" has become tainted with a perception of superiority, secrecy, and protection of "insiders" that some find intimidating and others find distasteful.

We definitely saw that on display in Nevada and Iowa when the Democrats caucused there. However, the Republicans had caucuses those nights as well and there were no problems. Nor are there problems like that here in Minnesota - for either party. Here in Minnesota we have secret balloting - no standing in a corner for all to see who you are supporting. Here in Minnesota we try not to let campaign operatives knowingly run a caucus as you saw in Nevada. In those cases, that is more of an indictment of the caucus organizers than it is the caucus process.

Dave remarks in his post.

The caucus system, whatever it's strengths may be, serves to intimidate first time voters. To say that it's rules and procedures are confusing to most people would be an understatement.

I can't argue with that - it can indeed be confusing for a first timer...especially if that first timer does not ask (or is not afforded the opportunity to ask) a lot of questions. The thing is, the MNGOP puts together a nifty little FAQ sheet that is available to all caucus goers - a "What to Expect Tonight" paper that caucus goers can read and use to help navigate the waters.

Dave also brings up another point that simply must be answered.

But the biggest flaw in the caucus system is the small window of time in which they are held. In a primary vote, most polls are open 12 hours, and there are state and federal laws requiring that employers give time off to vote. The caucus takes place over a 2-4 hour period, and you must be present and registered promptly at the starting time.

Starting with the last sentence first I have to say that in all my years of doing this I have yet to see any political meeting start promptly - it just does not happen. True you can not come in and register at 7:30, but I simply can not think of a single caucus that I have attended that started on time.

His other point has some validity. Caucuses are time consuming. It is not an event where you show up, fill in a couple of ovals and then go on with life. It is designed to be interactive - not a solo project. It is a place where the Joe and Jane Citizen can go and argue for the issues that are important to them. Whether it is on the battlefield or in a smoky back room with a bunch of cranky old people, the fight for democracy takes many forms.

Minnesota's caucus process is an opportunity for the average taxpaying citizen to have a say in how party politics is done! On it's purest level (which the Iowa and Nevada Democrat caucuses were not) it is where everyone truly gets to have their say. It is a chance for neighbors to get together and have a say in the direction of their city and state.

PETA - Domestic Terrorists

The Deseret Morning News had a story Saturday about a case of vandalism at a local restaurant that appears to have been committed by local animal "rights" groups.

The FBI is apparently investigating acts of vandalism and violence at one of Salt Lake City's poshest restaurants, which has been a target of animal rights activists.
A picture window at the Metropolitan restaurant was smashed. The
restaurant's owner said red paint has been thrown at the building, a gas main was damaged and a server was also punched in the face during a confrontation on New Year's Eve.
Metropolitan owner Karen Olson told the Deseret Morning News she was questioned by FBI agents about the vandalism.

The Metropolitan had apparently been targeted for serving foie gras - something that apparently had already been pulled from the menu.

The Metropolitan no longer serves foie gras, the fatty liver of ducks or geese. Olson took it off the menu after protests. Other restaurants have done the same, some because of polite requests by animal rights activists who wrote letters; others because of protests outside their buildings.

The FBI suspects that the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is responsible for the vandalism. The FBI considers ALF a "domestic terrorist group" because of their penchant to advocate violence to their targets - usually researchers looking for things like cancer and AIDS cures.

While the vandalism does bother me, what bothered me the most was the attitude from the AR supporters that this kind of behavior is somehow acceptable if it helps their cause.

"The protesters, including me, were made aware of these acts because police told us about them when we would subsequently show up to protest," said Jeremy Beckham, who has protested outside the restaurant...Beckham is with Utah Primate
Freedom, which has sparked a legal debate as the Salt Lake County Council sought to ban their demonstrations outside the homes of University of Utah scientists who participate in animal research. A conditional ban has been approved.
In his e-mail to the Deseret Morning News, he said the oppression of animals is "no less serious or atrocious than the oppression of humans."
"Their suffering is indistinguishable from our own and heaps of suffering are being thrown on them for the most trivial of human desires and profit," he wrote. "Once you see it that way, it's almost not impossible to view the ALF as a sort of
modern-day Underground Railroad."

This is the thing that has always gotten me about the animal rights movement - their total disregard for human suffering. You see - to this folks animals are more important - more valuable than people are.

Sorry Jeremy - these primates are not "indistinguishable" from humans. If they were they would not be living in treetops, they would have built cities and universities and written sonatas and sonets and made all the other myriad of accomplishments that human civilization has. While I am not OK with hurting animals for the sake of "entertainment" (bear baiting or cock fighting for example) I am perfectly fine with the medical research that is done today because so much has been done to make sure that the animals are not suffering needlessly during the trials!

But what about the "screams" that come from the animals any time a researcher approaches them you ask. I ask how do you know those are "screams"? You have avowed not to "use" animals so you don't know that there are different types of noises that animals make in different situations. Take (for example) the crazed puppy Jack. His noise is to bark. When he barks he could be asking to go outside, he could be scared or he could be protecting his "sheep" (humans). Unless you have lived with him for a while you would not know which was which! For all you know those "screams" could be calls of greeting or looking for attention! YOU JUST DON'T KNOW because you do not live with the animal day in and day out to know what it's needs are.

And that my friends is why PETA and it's ilk are rapidly losing the public relations war in America. Until they start valuing human life as much as they value animal life, they will be considered to be the terrorists that they are.

The Shape Of Things to Come?

The Logical Husband and I were watching This Week with George Stephanopoulos and I think I caught a glimpse to the future. While discussing the results of the Nevada Caucus and the the South Carolina primary votes yesterday, round table panelist Katrina vanden Heuvel commented on the media's fascination with Senator John McCain.

One thing I'd like to add one thing...John McCain...the media darling...I think we need to step back for just a moment and know but that there's a dissonance between what the media says about this straight talking maverick and who John McCain is. This man has deprived Rudy Giuliani, in my view, of a rational for his campaign - the national security candidate. But John McCain puts a polite face on warmongering - this is a man who has said we will keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years. He has advisers who are ready to go to war with Iran tomorrow. So I think we need to look at that. Finally The Nation reported two weeks ago that the man who stood up to the Swift Boats, who defined smearing, is now taking money from them. John Kerry, who is an admirer of the previous John McCain, said he is taking dirty money which is smearing the vets that he claims to love. I think that these are important factors...in looking at the media...the disconnect between the media and reality.

This has long been one of the pitfalls for ANY conservative that courts the media favor. The media is fully vested in defeating Republicans - ANY Republican! The sooner Republican candidates realize that the dead tree media is not their friend the better off these candidates will be! There is no such thing (in the eyes of our friends in the so-called main stream media) as a "good" Republican....only a defeated on.

Currying favor with the New York Times, the Washington Times, ABC News or the Star Tribune will bring you nothing but grief in the end!

When Job Cuts are Good.

During the Michigan primaries, Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee started his attack on fellow hopeful Mitt Romney by saying that he (Huckabee) wanted to be the "president who looks like the guy you work with and not the guy who laid you off." Since then he has used that in stump speeches as tag line for his populism. Today Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday took that stump speech rhetoric a step further by asking Governor Romney the following.

WALLACE: Governor, we have less than two minutes left. You also talk about your experience in private business. You were an enormously successful businessman in the '90s as the head of Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Your critics point out that you took over a company called American Pad & Paper. That company ended up closing two plants and laying off 385 workers. Bain also bought a company called Dade International, which ended up laying off some 1,900 workers. You didn't save those jobs, Governor.
ROMNEY: No, there's no question that if you're in the business world and you're trying to save a business that's in trouble, that you're not going to be successful 100 percent of the time.
And I'm very proud of the fact that we were successful many, many times. We grew jobs quite dramatically in many settings. But oftentimes, when an enterprise is in real trouble, you have to try and cut back to save it.

Emphasis mine. Let's start with American Pad and Paper. AmPad was formed in 1888 and 100 years later found itself the subject of a buy out (Mead Corporation) due to financial woes. American Pad and Paper Holdings was formed in order to take AmPad back to private ownership. It went from laying people off in 1992 to growing to the point that now it employes over 4100 people! A large portion of those 4100 jobs would have never been created had it not been for Bain and American Pad and Paper Holdings buying AmPad from Mead.

Now on to Dade International aka Dade Behring. Dade Behring was drowning in debt and Bain Capital came in. As part of the bankruptcy filings 1900 people were laid off, but there were thousands of other jobs who were saved so that when Dade came out of bankruptcy, it was a strong enough company to keep the remaining jobs intact.

Here is an unrelated story. While Bain Capital was not involved, they certainly could have been. Back in 2000 a company named McLeodUSA was burning up the telecom industry. McLeod employed approximately 3000 people in 25 different states. McLeodUSA was formed by the former darling of MCI - Clark McLeod. McLeod, after 4 years of rapid growth based almost exclusively on borrowing, entered into an agreement with Forstmann Little Company - another private equity firm along the lines of Bain Capital. Forstmann Little replaced McLeod with aviation turn-around artist Chris Davis. Under Ms. Davis' tenur, McLeodUSA went from having offices in all 25 states and 3000 employees to only 3 offices and 1500 employees. I was one of the 1500 that was laid off. However, if the 22 offices had not closed, if 1500 of us had not been laid off, McLeod would have closed it's doors and all of us would have lost our jobs. Given the state of the telecom industry right now, having all 3000 of us on the job market would have had serious repurcussions within the industry. Today, McLeod has rebuilt to the point that their new owners are taking a good look at the possibility of growth again!

What I am trying to get at here is that as hard as it is for jobs to be lost, as rough as it is for the people laid off there is still some good that can come out of layoffs such as we saw with Ampad, Dade Behring AND McLeodUSA. There are times when, in order for a company to survive, some jobs must be lost. It hurts like heck, for those who are laid off and for those that remain, but in the long run it is often better for the economy, the employees and the company for those cuts to be made.

Bush Derangement?????

Those of us on the right often talk about the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" which seems to afflict many on the far left of the politicial spectrum. I have long suspected that the derangement goes deeper than just President Bush and yesterday we got proof of that.

John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Barack Obama's praise of the Republican Party and Ronald Reagan - an anathema for many Democrats, particularly union members considered crucial to winning Nevada's Democratic caucuses Saturday.

Now if you take a look at what Senator Obama said, it was really thin praise.

Obama told the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board Monday that "Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it," Obama said."I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom," Obama told the newspaper.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of Republican principles eh? However that did not stop Senator's Clinton and Edwards from jumping on the attack.

Two Obama supporters said they received automated phone calls Friday evening in which the senator was described as supporting a Republican agenda.
Gregory Martin, a financial adviser in Reno, said the caller, who had a woman's voice, said she was calling to bring to his attention recent comments Obama had made "in support of the Republican Party and Bush's vision for America." The call also said Obama was in favor of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and was identified as coming from "friends of Hillary Clinton," Martin said.

Emphasis mine. You saw what he said. Would you call that "supporting a Republican agenda" or supporting anything President Bush has supported? No - all he said is that the Republican Party had ideas!

There you have it my friends. Something to contemplate any time that a politician on the left talks about wanting to compromise with their "friends" on the right in an effort of bipartisanship, don't believe them! It is clear (based on the above comments) that they do not respect the right and their ideas.

Remember this gem from DNC Chairman (and major Friend of Bill) Howard Dean?

I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for . . .

He is not the only one..... Remeber that the next time you are tempted to stay home to teach the squishys "a lesson". At least they don't hate you and everything you stand for like many Democrats do!

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a screen shot of Hillary Clinton's campaign website that is a must see (before it is taken down). Mrs. Clinton lists Ronald Reagan as one of her "favorite" Presidents! Doncha just love politics!

Governor Green Jeans Strikes Again!

Yesterday, our "Republican" governor announced a series of big government initiatives designed to asuage his guilt on man made global warming.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced several initiatives Thursday designed to encourage solar, wind and other renewable energy projects at the local level and to reduce global warming emissions.
He proposed four changes, including one to authorize local governments to issue $10 million to $20 million in revenue bonds to provide low-interest loans to individuals for "microenergy" projects. Those might include installing solar panels to produce hot water, geothermal equipment to heat and cool homes or businesses, or small wind machines to power homes, farms and schools.

Emphasis mine. With all credit to my favorite state legislator, I have a couple of questions for the Governor.....

1) WHERE in the Republican Party of MN platform does it say government should take money from one group of people and give it to another in order to allow them to buy stuff? (all of Section 1)

2) WHERE in the Republican Party of MN platform does it say that Republicans will grow government by adding yet another state bureaucracy? (all of section 8)

3) WHERE in the Republican Party of MN platform does it say that government should use it's bully pulpit to dictate what people can do in their homes or privately owned businesses? (Sect 2.V and Sect 7.K & L)

Now to be fair to our "Republican" Governor, his proposals have been given favorable reviews FROM THE DEMOCRATS!!!!!!

Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul and chairwoman of the Environment, Energy and
Natural Resources Budget Division, said any proposals to help homeowners afford energy-efficient projects will be popular among legislators.
"The governor's on the right track; there's nothing bad in what he's proposing, but we just need to do more," Anderson said. She and other legislators are formulating a more comprehensive energy and climate plan, she said.

I can not begin to say just how disappointed I am in the Governor. He is making decisions that will adversely affect middle class Minnesotans the hardest and all of it based on on the belief that something we are doing may or may not be warming the planet (I should note that Man Made Global Warming is not proven science - that many people have come forward lately disproving the claims of people like Al Gore and the rest of the global warming zealots).

It is time for the activists of Minnesota to decide....caucuses are in two short weeks! Are you going to stay home and tacitly support this leftward drift or are you going to show up and take back the Republican Party for conservatives!

Now is the time people.....get busy and get to caucus!

Hillarys "Way"

I have to admit, there are a lot of times when I don't agree with her, but today Sarah Janecek has a column that I agree wholeheartedly with!

Every career move Hillary made since the 1970s when she left Washington for Arkansas to marry Bill, was because of the status of her man. She never busted her own move.
Feminism it ain't
The antithesis of feminism is professional achievement entirely dependent on a husband.
Besides accomplishing real work sua sponte, a real feminist icon should also demonstrate good judgment and solid character.

Sarah hits the nail on the head here. Everything that Hillary has done with her career has been on Bill's coat-tails. First Female partner of the Rose Law Firm....she got because of who her husband was. Her "Health Care Taskforce" she got because of who her husband was. Everything she has ever gotten was because of who her husband was....none of it was because of who she was.

Read the entire column. It is spot on!

Is the Huckaboom Over?

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has certainly had a rough couple of weeks. Heck - you could say a rough year - as short as this year has been. In the weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses, his populist message (much to the consternation of principles first conservatives) seemed to be catching hold. Now that he has come back down to earth (with back to back disappointing 3rd place finishes in New Hampshire and Michigan), the campaign (and his adorers in the press) are wondering what happened. As an Evangelical, pro-life, pro man/woman marriage conservative, maybe I can help. It is really quite simple.....

It is principles! Governor Huckabee said (in an August 2007 forum on Cancer) that if he were President in 2009 and Congress sent him a Federal Smoking Ban that he would gladly sign it. He even took credit for the legislation...

"As a governor, I led our state to become the first state in the South to have a statewide ban on smoking anywhere indoors and I’m proud of that and it wasn’t the easiest thing in the world to get done,” Huckabee said. “It was hard. And I’ll tell you something, Chris, it takes the personal involvement of the chief executive to make that happen,” he said.

Now that it the stance is hurting him with conservatives he is backtracking.

In its statement to The Hill, the campaign stated, “At a Lance Armstrong cancer
forum last August, Governor Huckabee said that if Congress presented him with
legislation banning smoking in public places, he would sign it, because he would
not oppose the overwhelming public support that such a congressional vote would
reflect. However, since such sentiment for federal legislation doesn’t exist at
this time, and since he has said that the responsibility for regulating smoking
initially lies with the states, the governor believes that this issue is best
addressed at the local and state levels.”

Here's a radical thought....WHY DIDN'T HE SAY THAT THE FIRST TIME? Sorry for yelling...hot button and all that...

Gary Gross has a series of posts that I think adequately deal with some of the other issues that conservatives have with Governor Huckabee like his NEA endorsement, his raising taxes, his troubling illegal immigration stand, his anti-business rhetoric, his Baptist background (as a Baptist I found this to be disheartening to say the least)...the list goes on. However, now I want to discuss his latest gaffe - one that already has members of the left up in arms....

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Video of the speech is below.




Governor Huckabee and his defenders love to tell you that his stand is the only "conservative" one on the issue of abortion but they are wrong. It may be the "only" pro-life stand, but it is far from conservative. The conservative view on this issue is more of a constructionist/Constitutionalist view. Principled conservatives uphold the tenants of the Constitution, we don't want to change it easily. The principled conservative stand on DOMA and abortion is to let the state decide. That is what the Constitution is all about.

Kevin Ecker put it best when he said this to Governor Huckabee and his apologists (like Chuck Norris).

Yeah Chuck, it’s called federalism, it’s a basic conservative principle, and the basis of our form of government (but you knew that right?). You are arguing issues. Issues come and issues go, even ones as important as abortion and marriage. And issue positions only apply to that particular issue.
Principles last forever and they apply across many issues and can define one’s whole outlook on life, the world and issues. That’s why they are so important. That’s why people are willing to die over them in some cases.

Emphasis mine. As the Junior Logician reminded me (his History class is studying the Constitution this trimester) - federalism is important...the Founding Fathers were willing to DIE for it. He's right - it is something they staked their lives on and a "real" Conservative should be willing to conserve that which so many have laid their lives down for.....a Federalist form of government that has served us oh so well for almost 232 years!

Witch Hunts Continue?

Since the initial shock of the 35W bridge collapse wore off, Senator Steve Murphy and our friends on Portland Avenue have been looking for someone to blame for the collapse. Their target, almost from day one, has been Lt. Governor and MNDOT Commissioner Carol Molnau. The partisan feeding frenzy has been especially harried in the days leading up to the start of the new legislative session (Feb. 13) with elected officials on both sides of the aisle preparing for a battle over "re-confirmation" hearings. Well The New York Times is reporting today that the NTSB is releasing a preliminary report into the cause of the bridge collapse and if their findings are correct, Senator Murphy et al may have been a little premature in their placing of blame.

Investigators said Monday that the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, which collapsed into the Mississippi River on Aug. 1, killing 13, came down because of a flaw in its design.
The designers had specified a metal plate that was too thin to serve as a junction of several girders, investigators say.
The bridge was designed in the 1960s and lasted 40 years. But like most other bridges, it gradually gained weight during that period, as workers installed concrete structures to separate eastbound and westbound lanes and made other changes, adding strain to the weak spot. At the time of the collapse, crews had brought tons of equipment and material onto the deck for a repair job...“This is not a bridge-inspection thing,” said one investigator, “It’s calculating loads and looking at designs.” The investigator spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the investigators’ findings before the announcement Tuesday.

Emphasis mine. Even though the investigator said it was not a "bridge inspection thing" the Star Tribune, in its reporting on the preliminary report goes back to bridge inspections.

In 1993, a state inspector found that the half-inch gusset plate had lost nearly half of its thickness in some spots because of corrosion along an 18-inch line, but no repairs were ordered, according to Minnesota Department of Transportation records combed by the Star Tribune.

Now my memory is not as good as it once was, but I am fairly certain that back in 1993 (the year we moved to Minnesota) Carol Molnau was not Lt. Governor. I believe that she had just been elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives the year before and that Arne Carlson was governor at the time......

However, if the esteemed Senator and our dear friends on Portland Avenue are really determined to "place blame" for this tragedy, the Times suggests where they might be able to place the real blame for the collapse.

The I-35W bridge was of a type called “fracture critical,” meaning that the failure of any major member would cause a collapse, because it had no redundancy. The design is lighter and less expensive to build, but has gradually fallen out of favor with highway departments.

Emphasis mine...

As I said earlier, Tim Pawlenty and Carol Molnau were not even in politics at the time this bridge was designed, approved by MNDOT and built. They simply are not to blame for this tragedy. The inital designers maybe....those who approved that the design be built maybe, but no one who ever served in the Governors Office, the Legislature or MNDOT for the last 20 years should be saddled with the "blame" for this bridge coming down.

Rather than gunning after Lt. Gov. Molnau, maybe Senator Murphy should remember his remarks from an August 6, 2007 televised press conference when he said that he bore some blame for the collapse as his committee had oversight over MNDOT. But then again, that would spoil a perfectly good partisan witch hunt and we wouldn't want to do that now, would we?????

Taking Credit where None is Due

Remember this clip from General Petraus' and Ambassador Crocker's testimony last September?




Well today, Candidate Clinton had this to say on the success of the surge.

MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, "Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it's worked"--let me finish--"you can see on the ground. I'm saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don't destroy Iraq. It's working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete."
SEN. CLINTON: Tim, I'm going to go back to what the whole point of the surge was, and the testimony that we heard last fall. The point of the surge was to push the Iraqi government to make these tough choices. Now, if we put in 30,000 of our finest young men and women, who are going to go after the bad guys and quell violence in certain parts of Iraq, there's no doubt that can be done. The partnerships that have been created by the tribal sheiks in Anbar province and elsewhere gave us an extra advantage. But that doesn't in any way undermine the basic reality. The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.

Now in all fairness to Senator Clinton, the clip above shows that Mr. Russert's question was quite loaded. She did not say what he said she said. She said that "the reports (from Gen. Petraus and Amb. Crocker on the successes of the surge) that you have provided require the willing suspension of disbelief."

That said, her answer is the height of Clintonesque arrogance. For her to say that the reason that we are finally seeing political progress in Iraq is because the Iraqi's "follow everything I say." denigrates the sacrifices our our brave troops. Her grandstanding on this belittles the troops and their accomplishments and the Democratic Party.

Although, I may have to rethink my use of the term "arrogance" to describe her remarks. Her answer to Russert was so far beyond arrogance. I really don't know if there is an adjective that can adequately describe her majestic protestation of grandeur.

Growing Government

I did some further digging into the ALEC-Laffer economic report (initial post here). I thought it would be interesting to shed a little more light into some of the specifics that they had on Minnesota. While some of the metrics are not bad for Minnesota, they are (no doubt) about to get worse - if the DFL has their way. For example, our sales tax burden (per $1,000 of personal income) is 16th best (1 being best and 50th being worst) in the country. However, if the House and Senate Majority have their way, it will be worse. There were multiple sales tax increases proposed in the last session that could have moved us much further down the list. The property tax is 15th highest and it has steadily increased since the survey was taken (2005).
Now to the other end of the spectrum. Our top marginal corporate tax rate is 45 (5th worst) in the country and last session it could have gotten higher. There was a tax written into the budget that would have been imposed just on businesses. Our legislated tax change ranking was 43rd in the country and if the $334 million bonding bill had been passed last year, we would have been much, much lower.

The ALEC-Laffer report draws some very interesting correlations between taxes and economic decline in states.

Defenders of the high-tax and high-spending conditions that precipitate this fall into theeconomic cellar argue that big government policies and taxes on the wealthy are necessary to protect the poor and the disadvantaged. Yet when flight occurs away from an area, it is always the highest achievers and those with the most wealth, capital, and entrepreneurial drive who tend to "get out of Dodge" first, leaving the middle class, and then eventually only the poor and disadvantaged, behind. Inevitably that means fewer taxpayers and heavier tax burdens for those who remain. It's an analogous situation to the old party game "Pass the Bomb," where a plastic "bomb" gets passed from one person's lap to another until it buzzes and the person holding it loses. But this game is real:
The bomb is high taxes, and the people always left holding it when it detonates are the poor -- the very people who are supposed to benefit from redistributionist policies. This can create a crushing, viciouscycle of economic and fiscal decline.

Now based on that, maybe we should rethink our current policies. Instead of driving business and individuals out of the state with high taxes, maybe we should bring more business in. After all, if there are more businesses in Minnesota to pay taxes, there will be more tax dollars coming in for the state to spend. It's just something to consider....

The Politics of Identity

Identity politics has been something that has been around for a long time. This year, however, it is getting a real workout with an Aftican American, a woman and a Hispanic in the race (ok - I realize that Richardson is formally out of the race but bear with me here). As a result there has been a lot of campaigning directed at specific "target groups" in order to woo them to cadidate A or Candidate B. I ran across a couple of interesting stories in the last two days about the machinizations of the campaigns in order to win these target groups over. The first was in the Washington Times (HT Poligazette)

Even here at Wellesley College, Hillary Rodham Clinton's alma mater and a historic bedrock of progressive feminist thought, support for the senator from New York hardly registers as unanimous. Instead, the election has inspired a debate at this women-only liberal arts college about what it means to be a feminist. Do you vote for a woman to shatter the glass ceiling and further the cause? Or do you make an empowered, individual decision that is not confined by gender?

As a Hispanic woman, daughter of the feminist movement, the answer to me is clear....you make the empowered, individual decision. A vote based strictly on gender is what the movement has been fighting for decades!

Rosa Brooks shows us (in the Los Angeles Times) that there are plenty of young people out there who are also making their choice based on issues, not race or gender.

"The number of inter-marriages has gone up dramatically over the last few decades, and as a consequence, so has the number of multiracial young Americans, who -- like Obama -- are neither this nor that, but a bit of this and bit of that, with a healthy dollop of something else. And regardless of their own status, younger Americans are more likely than older Americans to have dated inter-racially, to have close friends of other races and to live in families with relatives from other racial and ethnic backgrounds...Americans under 30 grew up in a world in which women are CEOs and secretaries of State, and in which women make up the majority of U.S. college students. And, as with race, most younger Americans can't see what the big deal is. Of course a woman can be president. Of course being tough -- or getting a little teary-eyed -- on the campaign trail doesn't make you more or less feminine, or more or less suited to power. For younger voters, "Do you think a woman or a black man could be a good president?" is the wrong question. As women and men increasingly work side by side and share power, as the U.S. becomes a more complex, multiracial and multiethnic nation, younger voters may increasingly be asking themselves a very different question: Can a middle-aged white guy possibly be qualified to lead us
into the future?

Ms. Brooks is correct when she says that the only people the race and gender issue seem to be important to is the media. That is one reason why the major media are becoming more and more irrelevant to the truly informed voters. Those folks are going to look at the pros and cons of ALL of the candidates and decide which candidate best represents their values.

Those that only look at the superficial - the race and gender of the candidate - need to ask themselves one very important question. Have I really learned the lessons of the past? Am I really judging the person on the content of their heart or just the color of their skin (or gender)? Sadly, I am afraid that as long as we have people like this (HT Capt Ed)...

If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation.

we will have more focus put on the superficial and nothing put on the important issues of the day.