14 Responses to “ST. CLOUD TIMES: “EARLY BACHMANN CHALLENGER MAKES CASE””

1. Mike Grimes Says:
   June 24th, 2007 at 9:39 PM

   The Independence Party doesn’t currently allow for cross endorsement and a candidate like Hill sure as hell isn’t gonna get it even if it was allowed even if no endorsable candidate ran for the IP.

2. jay Says:
   June 24th, 2007 at 10:07 PM

   It just goes to show that a lefty is a lefty no matter what the Party is named.

3. Mike Grimes Says:
   June 24th, 2007 at 11:17 PM

   Which is why Pawlenty continues to spend like a Democrat.

4. jay Says:
   June 25th, 2007 at 6:52 AM

   I respectfully disagree with you Mike. Tim has done some things I haven’t liked. The smoking ban (I do not smoke), Ethanol and renewable fuel mandates.

   However, in all the debates over the last two elections the lefty’s were in agreement on taxes, gun control, social services and Pawlenty took the opposing view.

   He won’t get any of the Greenie Weenie vote anyway so I do not understand his support of renewable fuels. Same goes for Norm on his vote against ANWR.

5. otterscrubber Says:
   June 25th, 2007 at 8:30 AM

   Jay … Maybe, just maybe, Coleman and Pawlenty think the environment should be a non-partisan issue and realize that their children and their children’s children will be drinking the water, breathing the air and living on the same planet as the liberals’ kids. Just as wealthy conservatives are now able to move assets offshore, put their kids in private schools, and pass on their wealth, they will not be able to escape the environment that will be left to their children. The stuff that these two Republicans have done so far is very modest and more needs to be done, but hopefully the momentum is now pushing things in the right direction.

6. Dave Says:
   June 25th, 2007 at 9:04 AM

   Hey otterblubber…I’m not familiar with REPUBLICANS moving assets “offshore”, but I do know Dems that do it. Ted “Another Gin, Waitress!” Kennedy is famous for hiding money like that. Read “Do as I say, Not as I do”. Great book.

7. Chestnut Says:
   June 25th, 2007 at 9:06 AM

   Otter, how, exactly, do “wealthy conservatives..” “.. move their assets off shore”?

   Corporations do so… but what drives them to that?… punitive tax rates is the answer.

   As for sending their kids to private schools… Pawlenty’s kids and many conservative’s kids actually go to public schools. Liberals are the ones who advocated endless increases to the teachers unions, while send their kids to private schools.

   Wealthy liberals have a hard time with their kids’ mingling with the “unwashed”…

8. otterscrubber Says:
   June 25th, 2007 at 10:50 AM

   Holy crap … Only on this site would people disbelieve that people move assets to the Caymans or Switzerland to avoid taxation. Capital gains and inheritence are now taxed at a lower rate than they have been in some time in this country; and I’m sorry that you believe the Bush/Pawlenty years have resulted in excessive taxation.

   My point was that that the well-conected and the well-to-do have always been able to write advantages for themselves into law (whether in taxation or business, or to regulate competition out of their field of business); no one disagrees with that (unless someone can show where the disenfranchised and unconnected are controlling legislation). My point was that there will really be no way in the future to commoditize and regulate the environment so that the well-connected and well-to-do will have the pristine part and the rest will have something poisoned or ruined. We are all connected to the environment and everyone’s health depends on it, regardless of party, class, race, gender or whatever. It shouldn’t be an issue only the Greens care about.

9. Chestnut Says:
   June 25th, 2007 at 11:41 AM

   I don’t disbelieve it Otter, I just laugh at your insinuation that conservatives do it any more or less than liberals. Liberals are professionals at hiding and moving assets to avoid taxes.

   Capital gains and inheritance taxes should be taxed at a lower rate… in fact, they should not be taxed at all, ever. This is a good thing. And, particularly with capital gains tax reductions, a prime driver of the current, strong economy. Why penalize investment? And with regard to the death tax, why commit theft of property that’s already been taxed several times over.

   I took issue only with the silly, stupid and confused insinuation that conservatives do any of that more than liberals. Either way, I don’t mind that much since the wealthy pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden as it is.

   With regard to giving the “disenfranchised” (I prefer to call them lazy and disengaged) the poisoned parts of the environment… well, liberals already gave them the inner-city.

   Republicans have a better record on the environment than anyone (created the EPA, national parks, etc.). The environment isn’t even what the “Green” party cares about… The “Green” party is more interested in social engineering and communism. The environment, is simply a convenient wrapper for their fucked up ideology.

10. Andrew Says:
    June 25th, 2007 at 1:11 PM

    Hmmmm, Republicans have a better record on the environment. I wont dispute that SOME Republicans have been really good on the environment since you give some examples but as of today, the Republican party as a whole doesnt care whatsoever about the environment and it is hilarious you would try to say otherwise. Should I bring up the Senate votes on the Energy Bill last week? Collins, Snowe, Specter, and Smith I believe are the only ones who truly care about the environment, Sununu, Gregg, Coleman, Domenici are a bit on the fence.

    Maybe the Republican parties “record” is better (a record that probably wouldnt have been possible without Democrats, I bet those programs were created with the idea from like 4 Republicans and 50 Democrats supported it) but a record can only give someone so much clout. We didnt sign the Kyoto Protocol, Bush says every year we are addicted to oil and need ween ourselves off of it but I have yet to see a single piece of legislation that even starts us down that path. The Energy bill no longer has provisions for electric companies to have 15% of their power come from renewable energy sources, which is stupid and COMPLETELY doable. Isnt Minnesota’s 20%, or 25% and our electric companies even supported that!? Republicans do nothing for the environment TODAY and when we are paying 10.00 a gallon for gas, we can look back and say, thanks Republicans for investing in our future!

    i take issue with Michael saying the stars couldnt have alligned better for the DFL last year. We really did have quite the opportunity but Patty ran a horrible campaign and shouldnt have ever been our candidate. Sometimes having early name recognition isnt helpful at all, with name recognition comes initial impressions that usually do not change. Bachmann will be a tough one to take out due to the rampant Republicanism in the 6th but she is so extreme, even for the 6th. She’ll probably win but dont discount the attack ads that will point out her ridiculous votes, being one of 7 to vote against a bill to help small businesses, I mean what is that?!

11. Mike Grimes Says:
    June 25th, 2007 at 1:47 PM

    Bachmann is to principled to stay in congress for to long. For or better or worse she stands by her convictions no matter what. The right candidate can take her down. I think we’re all in agreement that it will have to be a single opponent. In fact Hill’s comments tend to suggest that if the DFL felt not running a candidate was a wise move he wouldn’t get in the way.

12. otterscrubber Says:
    June 25th, 2007 at 2:42 PM

    Are posts being taken down or is there a problem with the server?

13. Chestnut Says:
    June 25th, 2007 at 3:26 PM

    1) Thank God we didn’t sign Kyoto. Refusing to send it to the Senate was good Clinton/Gore policy. One Bush, thankfully followed. Kyoto is worthless. So worthless, none who signed are even close to meeting their mandates. I’d rather not sign a piece of shit that would ruin the economy for no clear benefit, than be held up as no fulfilling an obligation.

    2) The energy bill also was loaded with crap. The provision for 15 percent energy from “clean” sources was bogged down by piss-poor policies of cramming major tax increase on other energy companies. Can’t Democrats do anything without pandering to their socialist interest groups? … I don’t know, but I can’t imagine Minnesota is anywhere near 20 or 25 percent renewable energy. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to cite a source for that Andrew. But I’d bet it’s not even 5 percent.

    3) Don’t blame Republicans for $10 per gallon gas. Thanks to liberals, it’s even more difficult to mine and import natural gas (cleanest source around), it’s impossible to expand our refinery capacity, and hundreds of billions of barrels are accessible just off our shores (Calif. and Gulf of Mexico), but we can’t develop it. Shit “Energy Policy” wasn’t even in the Democrat lexicon until Bush introduced it.

    4) All the stars were aligned for the DFL last year, they failed to win it. They selected Wetterling — a piss poor candidate who ran an even more piss poor campaign. Bachmann’s a good representative of her district. Her landslide victory proved that fact.

14. jay Says:
    June 25th, 2007 at 6:48 PM

    otter, so turning food into fuel is good enviromental policy?

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.