Bush Speaks To Gutknecht, Shays, Hagel, Jones, Fitzpatrick and the Democrats

Simply stated, George Bush has had a bad week.

* Three Republican Senators rebuffed his legislation for interrogation and prosecution of terror detainees.
* President Clinton energetically defended his efforts to efforts to kill bin Laden and vowed that he would have more troops targeting bin Laden today.
* The April National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists, who are growing in number and geographic reach.
* Bob Woodward is set to release “State of Denial,” the third in his series of books documenting the inner workings of the Bush administration. Some of the tidbits include :
-- On July 10, 2001, George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Condi Rice had not taken the warnings seriously. Further, that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Tenet believed that Donald Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill bin Laden.
-- President Bush’s top advisers were often at odds among themselves, and sometimes were barely on speaking terms, but shared a tendency to dismiss as too pessimistic assessments from American commanders and others about the situation in Iraq.

So, it shouldn’t be surprising that Bush lashed out yesterday (Thursday - September 28), saying "Five years after 9-11, Democrats offer nothing but criticism, and obstruction and endless second guessing."

Although the stated target was the Democrats, I believe it was instead a warning to his fellow Republicans not to abandon ship.

Some Republicans in solidly conservative districts, and some not facing re-election this year, have publically changed their views on the war.

In North Carolina, Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., a staunch conservative whose district includes the Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune, originally supported the war. In 2005, he said there had been little reason to go to war and called on Bush to apologize for misinforming Congress.

When Gutknecht returned from his first visit to Iraq, he declared that Americans don't have "strategic control" of the streets of Baghdad and advocated a "limited troop withdrawal — to send the Iraqis a message."

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a Vietnam War veteran who is not up for re-election, said last year that the U.S. was "getting more and more bogged down" in Iraq and stood by his comments that the White House was disconnected from reality and losing the war.

In a mailing to constituents in mid-August, Pennsylvania Republican Michael Fitzpatrick urged an alternate course. "American needs a better, smarter plan in Iraq," said the mailing. "Congressman Fitzpatrick says NO to President Bush's 'stay the course' strategy.”

Connecticut Republican Rep. Chris Shays on August 28th said that the US needs time frame for troop withdrawal.

But will public comments translate into how these Republicans vote and perform their job?

So with weeks until the November election, voters are faced with a choice of supporting Rove-Robots who may appease voters concerns with comments that they have qualms about Bush’s strategy in Iraq but do nothing about it; or honest candidates that will support and protect our troops while enforcing their Congressional oversight responsibility.

Observing Fall Colors

I just spent the last week traversing portions of the First District looking at the colors. Now, the meteorologist may think that it is too early, but the political scientist knows that this is the time to get a sense of the political landscape. The lawn signs are out and for the past twelve years, I have observed plenty of patriotic-inspired signs - blue with white lettering and a red ribbon. But, this year a new color scheme can be seen -- maize letters on an azure blue background and, when appropriate, a hint of white lettering. Rather refreshing – straightforward without being patronizing.

During the course of my travels ( somewhat following the DM&E tracks), I observed the expected (Gutknecht in New Ulm), the slightly surprising (Walz in St. Peter), the encouraging (Walz in Waseca) and the disappointing (Walz in Winona). With some of the letters to the Editor in the Winona papers over the past nine months, I expected to see a warm reception from Winona, but it was not evident.

Lawn signs are a good indicator – if someone is willing to put a sign in the yard and accept the verbal slams from their neighbors, they’re pretty committed. Some yards had multiple candidates while others only had one, but I get a sense when someone has a Dem or Republican sign that they will most likely vote for that party’s candidate in the Congressional election.

Jesse Ventura may have thought he “shocked the world”, but I wasn’t shocked. As I traveled the state, you could see it in the people’s eyes who displayed bumper stickers and lawn signs, that Ventura would win easily. They were committed voters.

On one college campus, I saw two students talking and one was carrying a lawn sign for a State Senate candidate. I asked how he thought his candidate would fare in November. He went on to extol that “the Democrats have got a message this year and they’re gonna win.” I asked, “So what’s the main challenge?” He responded telling me about the Republican candidate. I had to tell him that he was wrong as the Republican candidate could get 30-40 % of the registered voters in the district and win the election. He looked at me with a funny look wondering how that was possible. I explained the main challenge is Apathy. The real goal is not only to get the Democratic vote out but also to convince the 20-30 % that they have a real opportunity to shape this election.

Committed voters are what counts, not poll numbers. Polls express an opinion and provide candidates with talking points that voters want to hear. The recent SEIU poll should only be a guide to voter awareness of who the candidates are. Without knowing how the poll questions were asked, it is impossible to interpret the results. The fact that Walz did so well is encouraging, but the key is to get the Apathy Vote. September polls mean nothing, the only poll that counts is on November 7th.

So, get a lawn sign and convert a neighbor.
Oh, and by the way, I noticed that the trees are just changing now with maximum viewing over the next weeks.

CRIME SOLVERS : Gingrich and Gutknecht

Identifying the obvious : Gutknecht learns from Gingrich

Gil Gutknecht adds a footnote concerning Iraq on his weekly eline :
“NOTE: Former Speaker Newt Gingrich said last week that one of the true measures of progress should be the number of unemployed males under 30. He's right. The lower that number, the smaller the pool of recruits for militants.”

Insightful analysis ? Hardly. Gutknecht almost sounds giddy, praising his mentor as if these words of wisdom had never been spoken before. Heck, John Murtha in his November 2005 press conference cited the high unemployment in Iraq as one of the main problems … as well as other aspects of the failure of the Iraqi Reconstruction program.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700982.html

But let’s accept it as a monitoring metric. The Brookings Institute monitors the Iraqi Reconstruction program and has reported the nationwide unemployment to be between 25-40% which in essence is where it has been since January 2005. The Iraqi Ministry of Planning states a 30% unemployment rate, whereas the Iraqi Ministry of Social Affairs claims it to be 48%.

Unfortunately, Gutknecht only identifies the metric but offers no proposal for how to increase employment.

Solving Iraq may be impossible, but how is Congress addressing this subject at home?

Should the same metric– the lower the number of unemployed, the lower the crime rate- be used to address US crime?
The National Association of Chiefs of Police is reporting that the 2005 Uniform Crime Report issued annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicate an increase in violent crime.
Statistics provided in Crime in the United States, 2005, include:
* Nationwide in 2005, there were an estimated 1,390,695 violent crimes reported.
* The estimated volume of robbery increased 3.9 percent, murder and nonnegligent manslaughter increased 3.4 percent, and aggravated assault increased 1.8 percent from 2004 figures.
* Collectively, victims of property crimes (excluding arson) lost an estimated $16.5 billion: $7.6 billion in motor vehicle thefts, $5.2 billion as a result of larceny-thefts, and $3.7 billion in burglaries.

Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty said the recent increases in violent offenses could reflect a convergence of factors: a rise in gang membership, the spread of highly addictive methamphetamine and the increasing numbers of young people who are 18 to 24, the age group that generally commits the most crimes.

Several police officials who have complained that the U.S. government has allowed anti-crime initiatives to languish as it has focused on anti-terrorism efforts here and abroad. "This report should serve as a strong wake-up call," said Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske in Seattle, which recorded a 25% increase in gun-related crime last year. "We better realign our focus to the war going on in some of our cities." Edward Flynn, police commissioner in Springfield, Mass., said local police agencies have yet to recover from the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which led the federal government to redirect tens of millions of dollars in grants away from policing projects and toward homeland security programs. "Police can't be good homeland security partners if they cannot do their core missions," said Flynn, whose city of 155,000 had 18 homicides last year, double the number from 2000. "People need to see this as a sign for concern."

Mayors and police chiefs at a recent crime conference said they were seeing spikes in violent crime for 2006. They have called for greater support from federal law enforcement, expressing concern that the Bush administration might be too complacent. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated earlier this month that additional crime-fighting funds for cities were not in the offing, noting that the war on terror remains the greater priority.

The Bush administration has failed to build on the Clinton administration's success in funding more police through its COPS crime-control program.

Is it fair to ask Congress how to address unemployment, youth and crime? Is part of the equation the recognition that many policemen are currently serving as National Guard reservists in Iraq?

Is Gutknecht confronting the political reality of his legislative agenda?

Ah, it must be the election season, when the failure to enact legislation is masked by heralding of a House Resolution to address America’s addiction to foreign oil.

The subject of this week’s eline from Congressman Gutknecht is renewable fuels.
One might have thought that this would be just another plug for Gutknecht’s 10/10 plan which would require a 10 percent blend of renewable fuels in all gasoline sold in the United States by 2010. But since that legislation has just languished in the Republican controlled House, Gutknecht trumpets that “House Committee on Agriculture held a hearing to discuss the future of renewable fuels in America. We examined and passed a resolution (H. Con. Res. 424) that sets a goal for the United States to provide at least 25% of the total U.S. energy consumption from renewable agricultural resources by the year 2025.”

WOW. From a Law to a Resolution and from 2010 to 2025 – that’s must be what Gutknecht considers progress. I considered it to be insulting and illustrative of his non-performance and ineffectiveness.

Facing reality that this DoNothing Congress has squandered the time required to achieve a goal by 2010, why move it out to 2025?

I contacted Congressman Gutknecht earlier this year when I noticed that H.R. 4409 The Fuel Choices for American Security Act of 2005 seemed to be a better bill than his 10/10 Act. Included in H.R. 4409 was a 10 % ethanol requirement with a deadline of 2015, but also many more provisions; such as vehicle efficiency improvement, promoting hybrid technology, and requiring a 20% petroleum reduction by 2015 for vehicles used by federal agencies. H.R. 4409 has a broad group of 83 co-sponsors including Mike Pence (who is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee – a group that promotes fiscal discipline), and fellow Republican fiscal hawks John Hayworth and Tom Tancredo; and Democratic US Senate candidates Sherrod Brown and Harold Ford. Gutknecht wrote me that he has concerns with H.R. 4409 since it would repeal the tariff on imported ethanol. Gutknecht is embracing protectionism while not acknowledging that the industry is not in place to process what we grow. The Star-Tribune reported on September 7th, of a “plan to plow under 10 percent of the crop was drafted recently, in case the processing plants are unable to handle”.

Gutknecht seems to indicate an Isolationist Worldview and that is troubling in a global economy. This concern was addressed in President Bush's State of the Union Speech
America rejects the false comfort of isolationism.
Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need.
In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors, like China and India, and this creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people's fears. So we're seeing some old temptations return. Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy. … We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy -- even though this economy could not function without them. (Applause.) All these are forms of economic retreat, and they lead in the same direction -- toward a stagnant and second-rate economy.

Also, our gas stations do not have the pumps and fuel storage tanks to handle the demand. Minnesota has North America's largest network of E-85 gas stations, with approximately 260 stations now operating. Some states such as Tennessee have only two stations.


In Gutknecht’s eline, he trumpets that gas prices are down to $2.22 per gallon. Well, since my tractor runs on diesel which is at $2.59 per gallon, it’s got a ways to go. But since most people use unleaded gas, let’s look at gasoline prices. When Gutknecht was campaigning for re-election in September 2004, I was paying $1.799 per gallon. One year later, it was $2.499 and topped in August of 2006 over $3.00. Although the price is down today, Gutknecht is ignoring the overall trend of higher prices. That’s akin to being happy that you lost those five pounds that you put on since Christmas and not acknowledging that you’ve put on ten over the previous year.

He closes his eline with “If Brazil can become independent of OPEC, so can we.”
Brazil may have done that because had the political strength to confront reality. Cars in Brazil have been retrofitted to run on E85-type products. Currently, only specifically built Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) can use E-85, and Gutknecht has failed to lead efforts to work with Environmental Protection Agency to affect a change. This is despite Minnesota Center for Automotive Research at Minnesota State Mankato is currently working on conversion equipment. Additionally, Brazil with extra capacity in sugar beet production is actually in a position to help America with current ethanol, but Gutknecht would rather support tariffs than lower consumer prices.


Gutknecht eline
http://www.gil.house.gov/eline/eline.htm

H. Con. Res. 424
Expressing the sense of Congress that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the United States should provide from renewable resources not less than 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber.
http://www.25x25.org/storage/25x25/documents/HConRes424.pdf

H.R. 4409 The Fuel Choices for American Security Act of 2005
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=h109-4409

Bush State of the Union
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html

Star-Tribune story
http://www.beetseed.com/view_article.php?id=1210

Gutknecht votes to suppress democracy; foster apathy

Lead by a Republican majority that has been non-responsive to many of America’s needs, the 109th Congress has been branded as DoNothing Congress, but their main accomplishments lie ahead … sadly, those accomplishments may be a degeneration of the advances that our society has made over the past 100 years.

This week, Gil Gutknecht, Mark Kennedy, John Kline, Jim Ramstad and other Republicans voted to step back in time to disenfranchise its citizens.

During the past century, Congress, faced with a question of individual citizens’ rights and national interest, determined that states rights would be subservient to federal law in right to vote issues. From women getting the right to vote in 1920, the exposure of poll tax, and cumulating in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Congress repeatedly enacted laws to make voting inclusive. My first opportunity to vote was a result of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution.

On September 20th, this Republican House of Representatives approved H.R. 4844 – the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006. The intent of this legislation is to require proof that the individual is a citizen of the United States to prevent fraudulent voting in Federal elections.
If any state enacted this legislation fifty years ago, Congress would have stepped in … but now, the House is leading the charge.

Quickly, I see four problems with this legislation.

One, it is solving a problem that may not be there.
With Congressional Districts drawn to ensure incumbents retain their seats, most Federal Elections are non-competitive. Many pundits believe that this year might have the largest changeover – but no more than fifty of the 435 districts are in question. I believe the last close election in Minnesota was Minge-Kennedy in 2000 which Kennedy won by 439 votes (138,972 vs. 138,583). Generally, incumbents win by tens of thousands of votes. Does Congress really think that illegal aliens are going to expose themselves by voting? If they did, how many elections would be changed? Since it is reported that so many illegal aliens have fraudulent identification, wouldn’t being on the voter’s rolls actually reinforce their bogus identity?

Two, this is another federal mandate without funding for the states to implement.

Third, the hassle of obtaining the necessary paperwork for a citizen to exercise the right to vote will create additional apathy and non-participation in the process.
The queue will increase as people show their identification delaying the process of voting. I live in a rural area and when I go to vote, it’s a chance to see the neighbors. The election judges know me – either personally or at least enough to say a quick hello at the grocery store – but under these rules, if the judge is doing the job correctly, ID will have to be shown. During the 2004 election, our precinct had observers from the Twin Cities; I’m sure they would demand ID be evaluated. The same ID requirement is applicable for absentee voting which may reduce the number of seniors and handicapped citizens.

Fourth, the ramifications are that only activists will participate in the election process.
Although this is applicable to Federal Elections, State Elections take place at the same time. The spill down to local elections is where the smaller voter turnout will be felt. Case in point, the recent September 12th Primary Election was used to trim a large number of candidates for the November elections. One School Board District in Rochester had over 9,000 votes … and the margin between first and third was less than 100 votes.

This is an outrage and every Representative who voted for it should be ashamed.

In an era, when more people vote for American Idol, shouldn’t Congress be trying to increase voter participation? But then again, more people can probably name the winners of American Idol then their Congressman … but that may be what Congress wants – apathetic and ill-informed voters.



http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109PJG66R::

Manipulation, Bias, or Ineptness - Gutknecht & KEYC

Question : Does Mankato’s television station have a favorable bias for Congressman Gutknecht? Or is it, the power of the incumbency that allows Gutknecht to manipulate the media in his favor? Or is it the ineptness of KEYC’s reporters?

Being a concerned citizen, I pay attention whenever the media presents a story with Minnesota politicians. Over time, I have noticed that Gutknecht and Coleman get a number of stories. I’ve heard WCCO’s Pat Kessler state that Coleman is on constant-press-release-overload while Mark Dayton rarely tries to influence the media. I do not see the same frequency coming from Gutknecht’s press releases on his website. But somehow, Gutknecht gets “good” coverage from KEYC – recently stories included: farm listening sessions; Kids for Hunger Relief; and yesterday, a “prescription drug importation hearing”. He shows up and they film him. These appear to be nothing more than an opportunity for Gutknecht to vocalize his position without any prodding or challenge from the “journalist”. A check of the KEYC website, indicates only one similiar story involving Tim Walz - a veterans benefit picnic in St. Peter - and as I recall, Walz was not interviwed.

I have sent an email to KEYC (see below). I have to wonder if the same activity is happening with other television stations? In a radio interview, the listener can judge the dialogue between the candidate and interviewer, but on TV it seems to be one-sided.


Mr. Dennis Wahlstrom
KEYC-TV
PO Box 125
N. Mankato, MN 56002
E-mail: tvdenny@keyc.com

Dear Mr. Wahlstrom,

After viewing Monday’s news report concerning Congressman Gil Gutknecht prescription drug importation hearing held at Old Main village, I have to wonder how does KEYC-TV distinguish between a campaign event and a news event?
Although it was advertised as a “hearing” it was not advertised on his website and it was held in a private residential facility. I suspect that the room that the “hearing” was held in can accommodate 60 people and from the new footage it did not look like the room was filled.
KEYC has been a great service to the community providing wonderful coverage to numerous events and activities but during the political season, I believe that judicious evaluation is required before running a story that may be more political than news. To me, the line is drawn once political advertisements begin, then promotion pieces must stop. Since Tim Walz has been running ads since last week, this story should have only been handled as a news event. As a news event, the reporter should have asked questions of the candidate not provide free access for the candidate to make a campaign speech. I believe that the reporter should have asked the following questions :
H.R.328 (Prescription Drug Importation) was introduced by Gutknecht on January 25, 2005 and has been sitting in committee for over a year-and-a-half. Despite 121 cosponsors, it has not been moved forward by the Republican majority. Why haven’t you started a discharge petition to get a vote on your legislation?
Your presentation points out the price discrepancies between US and Foreign prices on a select group of drugs as a reason to allow importation. But couldn’t the same be accomplished by aggressive negotiations. The Veterans Administration has successfully done this. There is legislation pending in Congress that would accomplish this – H.R. 376 which has 167 co-sponsors including Gutknecht. It was introduced on January 26, 2005 but is being held up by the Republican leadership. A discharge petition has been started; why haven’t you signed the petition if you support the bill?
Does it bother you that Amy Klobuchar has television ads running embracing the same proposal that you are endorsing ? Why cannot you convince your fellow Republican Mark Kennedy that your solution is better for the country?
If 38,000 packages have been siezed, should you be advocating that citizens be involved in a process that may be illegal? How should citizens react if they find out that their medicines are stopped by the customs bureau?
Those are the types of questions that are appropriate for viewers to consider when eveluating a candidate, but the KEYC story only provided a sound bite for a Congressman running for reelection. Was there any real “news”? Or, was this just an opportunity for Gutknecht to iterate a policy that he has been advancing for years and that the Republican majority has rejected.
My comments are addressing Mr. Gutknecht, but are applicable to anyone running for office after KEYC starts to accept ads.

http://www.keyc.tv/article/view/107433/
Congressman Gil Gutknecht made a stop in Mankato today. Gutknecht held a prescription drug importation hearing at Old ain Village to address the rising costs of prescription drugs. He also discussed how Americans can get prescriptions from other countries for half the cost, but are being seized by customs. Gutknecht says American's are being held hostage and he's hoping to change that. With virtually every other product, we can go to Canada and but whatever we want, that's called NAFTA, but prescription drugs are held separately, a point of this hearing is to at least let people know that we're aware of this and to let them know what we're doing to try and stop the customs bureau from treating American citizens like common criminals. Gutknecht says between November 2005 and July of this year, nearly 38 thousand packages of drugs have been seized by US customs.

Looking forward to your reply,

McPherson Hall

Lesson to Learn from Mark Kennedy’s Negative Ad : Evaluate the Assertion

I’m surprised by Mark Kennedy’s latest ad … not that it is negative, as negative advertisements work … but that he Paid and Authorized the ad as the assertions made are better made by advocacy groups.

The quality of the ad does not have the “warm fuzzy good feel” of the previous “family guy, Mark”. It starts off with grainy, jiggly footage of Klobuchar … that’s a tip-off that the ad will be negative, but ends with a picture of Kennedy that is of the quality of a mugshot that seems to accent his narrow, piercing eyes.

The gist of the ad is : Klobuchar was a registered lobbyist; “extreme liberal” groups donate to her campaign; and she has invested in oil and pharmaceutical companies yet complain about them.
Scary stuff … but let’s ask a few questions.
Kennedy has effectively connoted that lobbyists are bad. Do we know who Klobuchar was lobbying for? Was it a cause that you believe in? For example, did she act as a lobbyist to get woman the right to a defined stay in a hospital after giving birth? If you are acting as a lobbyist, aren’t you advocating a position … that does not mean that you have offered a bribe. If Kennedy is so concerned about lobbyists, why isn’t he at the forefront in Lobbyist Reform?
Since America does not have government funded campaigns, accepting monies from advocacy groups is part of the process. How you define “extreme” is open to interpretation. Kennedy has received $10,000 from Tom DeLay's PAC Americans For A Republican Majority. He also received monies from John Thune’s Heartland Values PAC (whose contributions came in part from DM&E employees.)
Klobuchar’s investments are part of her retirement mutual funds that she does not control how the mutual fund invests the monies.

Now, compare that negative ad to Tim Walz’s television ad that does have some negative consequences. Walz’s ad is very good. It speaks of general issues, gives a brief candidate profile and includes a zinger on Gil Gutknecht’s ever-increasing salary. Hey, I like it. I wrote challenging Gutknecht to justify his pay increase based on performance before Walz issued his press release. Walz’s ad combines positive and negative and leaves the voter with a better understanding of the candidates without implying questionable, unverifiable assertions.