This is a time to get together and eat and talk , just time for our friends. There is no format, dues, agenda etc., We can meet anytime or place we decide, picnic pot luck, local food, anything we want to, even invite speakers. But for now please show up, eat and talk to like minded friends. No need to RSVP just stop by and eat.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Trana if you like.
Corey Mock held a press conference earlier yesterday regarding a troubling problem in the Secretary of State's office--as if there weren't enough of them already...
It would seem that employees of the office are having a problem keeping themselves to 40 hours a week. Overtime use is rampant in the office.
Here's a list of all the overtime hours in the office for the last two bienniums.
For 24 employees, there was a total of 7200 overtime hours last biennium and another 3600 over the first ten months of this biennium. Now if you're a manager, if you're seeing your overtime numbers already high, as high as an office with seven times the staff as you have(like the Attorney General's office), you hire more employees. Jaeger seems to be content in overworking his existing staff and letting the taxpayer pick up the tab.
Mock is going to be requesting some information from Jaeger's office in an effort to figure out what the problem here is, but what is interesting about this whole story is what the NDGOP did. They issued the following press releas before Corey's presser today.
Desperate to stay relevant, State Rep. Corey Mock is yet again trying to draw attention away from his own record of supporting bigger government and higher taxes in his race against Secretary of State Al Jaeger.
Mock's latest distortions charge inefficiency and excessive overtime pay in the Secretary of State office. This account chooses to selectively ignore key facts about the office's operations.
The number of registered businesses in North Dakota has doubled since Jaeger entered office and his staff size has remained level. Jaeger's office has been at the forefront of agency management in the state, often maintaining a surplus in his office budget despite the increasing demands on his office.
"Liberal activist Corey Mock is running a negative campaign because he doesn't want to talk about his tax-and-spend record," said Adam Jones, Executive Director of the North Dakota Republican Party. "Mock has never even run a popsicle stand and now he's wildly distorting the record of a distinguished public servant to try and stay relevant."
Mock's own record is both liberal and hostile to jobs-creators. In just two years in the legislature, Mock has already amassed a voting record antagonistic to North Dakota businesses. The North Dakota Chamber of Commerce gives him a 50 percent rating.
"We hope Mock uses this press conference to talk about how he will manage the Secretary of State's office in light of all the new regulations and taxes businesses in North Dakota will face as a result of legislation passed by national Democrats," Jones said.
I frankly find this hilarious. First off, I havent seen so many buzz words packed into a single press release in a while. I dont know that a 50% rating from the Chamber is terrible. that means that half of the time he has voted for business interests, while the other half he has presumably voted in the interests of consumers and workers. That's a pretty moderate record, don't ya think?
Second off, as I said, this press release was made at noon yesterday. Mock's press conference was at 1:30. They apparently didnt want to listen to what he had to say, they wanted to go out and attack Corey before he said a single word on the matter. I also would like to know what these "key facts" they speak of (and how can they say he ignores them when he hasnt said anything yet?). All I see are glittering generalities and
terms like "liberal," "tax and spend," "anti-business," and "popsicle stand." Who exactly is going negative here? The candidate making substantive criticisms of the Secretary of State, or the party that has to use buzz words to gin up sentiment against the other candidate?
Lastly, I did a quick search through the NDGOP's press releases, and discovered something. This is the first time the party has said anything about Corey. Did they all of the suddenly get their heads out of the clouds and realize that there's somebody pummeling Jaeger with extremely hard and legitimate criticisms about his inability to run his office and decide, "hey, we better get out ahead of the curve on this one!?"
How flat-footed can you be? For god sakes, at least listen the criticism before you call the person making it "desperate to stay relevant." Especially when you have to resort to character assasination and buzz words instead of talking about substance. The only thing desperate here is this press release. Jaeger's top two employees in the office together have racked up over 1150 hours of overtime just between the two of them in the first ten months of this biennium. Thats over 115 hours a month. A full time employee works 160 hours a month. That sounds pretty substantive to me.
The NDGOP is scared shitless about Corey Mock. They aint seen nothin' yet.
(Cross-posted with permission from The PrairieBlog.)
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who, from all I can tell, is generally not a wacko, has joined forces, or actually taken leadership of, a group of wackos who want to repeal parts of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically Section 1, which grants automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States. Specifically, that section says, simply, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Graham is apparently trying to regain some conservative credibility after getting too cozy with Senator Byron Dorgan and other moderate Democrats, but he’s in bad company on this one, with the likes of Senator John Kyl, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, Rep. John Boehner, and Senate candidate Rand Paul.
This is a mean-spirited effort to gain political points in an election year by highlighting the illegal immigration issue once again. Repeal of the 14th amendment would deny citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants. And also those children born of legal immigrants. It’s been in the news lately and you’re going to hear more about it. This is the amendment given to us by President Abraham Lincoln and a Republican Congress to guarantee everyone equal protection under the law. This was one of the reconstruction amendments which abolished slavery and then prevented states from passing their own laws regarding slavery and equal protection. These people, Republicans all, do not deserve to be part of the Party of Lincoln.
I wish these people had known my mother. And two friends of hers, Adolf Schmidt and his wife Leni.
Adolf and Leni (pronounced Laney) emigrated from Germany to Hettinger, North Dakota, in the years after World War II. Adolf had a cousin who ran a café in Hettinger, and they came here, with their pre-school age daughter, Elke, to work in that café. Adolf was a trained chef, and he cooked while Leni waited on tables. Through hard work and good fortune, they were able to buy that restaurant from Adolf’s cousin. They worked 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, and in their little spare time they learned English and studied for their U.S. citizenship test.
After a few years, Leni became pregnant. She worked right up until it was time to have her baby, and then was whisked off to the brand new Hettinger Community Memorial Hospital, the finest medical facility she had ever seen. She gave birth to a son, which she and Adolf had agreed to name Kent. Adolf stayed behind at the café that day, and at closing time, he trotted up the hill to that hospital as fast as his short, fat little German legs would take him.
He found Leni propped up in her hospital bed. She looked up at him and said, in her still-broken English “Adolf, we have a son. His name is Kent.” And then, her face beaming in joy and wonderment, she said “And guess what? He is already an American.”
My mother was the o.b. nurse on duty at the hospital that night, and she was standing at Leni’s bedside when Adolf came in. She loved to tell that story. She called it “the miracle of America.” She said that, as important as that son was to Leni and Adolf, equally important was the fact that their son was a United States citizen. By birth. Adolf and Leni could imagine nothing more wonderful, more important, than being a United States citizen. And they could only marvel that despite the fact they were not yet United States citizens, because of that wonderful document called the United States Constitution, their son was. Their son was an American.
My mother had many fond memories of her 40-plus years in nursing, but none more wonderful than that one.
Adolf and Leni and Elke eventually became naturalized citizens. Adolf and Leni ran the café until they sold it and retired. Kent was a citizen from the moment he took his first breath. He moved away when he grew up. I hope he lives in a state whose Senators and Congressman will oppose this effort. If not, I hope he calls them and tells them his story.
“He is already an American.” Surely some of the best words ever spoken in North Dakota.
(Cross-posted with permission from The PrairieBlog.)
Stop the presses. You read that headline correctly. I agree with Bill O'Reilly and the Fox "News" Actresses.
Bill O'Reilly had a couple of Foxxy "News" actresses ("NA") on the Factor last night to talk about his perception of "feminism." They spent some time talking about the important subject of Jennifer Aniston, and then got to this...
B.O. -- The governor of North Carolina, his daughter posed for bikini shots.
NA1 -- North Dakota
NA2 -- North Dakota
B.O. -- North Dakota, I'm sorry, North Carolina. There she is.
B.O. -- North Dakota.
NA1 -- South Dakota
B.O. -- No, it's North Dakota.
NA2 -- She's actually a model.
B.O. -- She's a model. [undecipherable] [Note:She's apparently moved on from modeling and is now working at pappie's bank.]
B.O. -- So here's the question: Does... Do children of famous people, whether they be in show business or political figures, doing bad things, reflect back on the famous person?
NA1 -- They... They... The only reason they're making news is because of the famous person.
B.O. -- That's true...
NA1 -- So of course they reflect back on the famous person. It actually matters, I think, how the famous person handles the brouhaha. I think the swimming suit thing is not a brouhaha. You've got a beautiful daughter who's a model. Scott Brown also posed in a centerfold. Scott Brown's daughter is also wearing bikinis. I don't think it's a big deal to get caught in a bikini.
For the first time, ever, I think I might agree with these people about one thing they said. But for the right wing being all up in arms about this, this would be "no big deal." I still don't understand why people are talking about this now.
I don't understand why the dishonest shills on the "Right" are suggesting Democrats or leftists or progressives are attacking Hoeven for his daughter's modeling career. I still haven't seen that anywhere, ever. It seems like what they're doing is they're making up a story about liberals criticizing Hoeven for something, though liberals aren't, and then they're attacking the liberals for blowing that non-existent controversy out of proportion.
That just seems like something a dishonest, corrupt, untrustworthy political hack would do. Not something a legitimate news commentator or reliable person would do. It's fake journalism.
Oh!!!! He's too busy golfing in Utah with two of America's most radical right-wing politicians, Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett. And they're golfing and charging people $1,000 to play with them.
What!?!? The $100 large you got selling your soul to Wall Street wasn't enough?
Sounds pretty typical.
At least he isn't spending the weekend hiding under his desk.
The Bismarck Tribune is reporting today (or yesterday)t that the Burleigh County States Attorney's (BCSA) office is telling former North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance Director Charles "Sandy" Blunt to poop or get off the pot.
Today Blunt is a convicted felon, having been tried by a jury of his peers for misapplication of entrusted funds. He was accused of mishandling state government money, to the tune of thousands of dollars, was convicted, sentenced, and appealed the conviction. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The case was recently sent back down to the trial court.
Meanwhile, as the appeal slowly worked its way to the top of the North Dakota Supreme Court's pile, "someone" -- and I'm pretty sure I know who [hint: initials "S.C."] (but I can't confirm because the process is a "big secret" -- filed an ethics grievance against the prosecutors, alleging the BCSA had withheld exculpatory evidence (i.e. evidence likely to prove Blunt's innocence) from Blunt's attorney in the prosecution. Now, when I say the process is a "big secret," I put quotation marks around "big secret" because "someone" (and I'll bet I know who [hint: initials "S.C."] (but I can't confirm because that, too, is supposed to be a "big secret.") brought a copy of some of the otherwise confidential papers to someone at the Tribune. I can't find out who because I'm a little too big to crawl under the belly of a snake to find the people at the Bismarck Tribune who print S.C.'s magazine and who chose to write about the "big secret." But the "big secret" of the ethics grievance ended up in a recent story in the Bismarck Tribune, despite its status as a "big secret."
Because of some correspondence from Blunt's lawyer to the BCSA (and presumably because of the allegations in the ethics complaint), it would appear reasonable to assume Blunt is considering bringing a "post trial motion," asking the court to throw out the conviction because of "newly discovered evidence"; evidence that there was prosecutorial misconduct; misconduct in the form of withholding exculpatory evidence. Allegedly.
It appears that the day before yesterday, assistant states attorney Cynthia Feland -- a candidate for district court judge in the Bismarck area -- filed a Motion "In Litis Contestatio" in the Blunt criminal case. The purpose of the motion appears to be an effort by the BCSA to make Blunt bring his heavy artillery if HE really, truly, sincerely believes the BCSA withheld evidence. It's a "poop or get off the pot" motion and brief if I've ever seen one. It looks like the BCSA office is saying to Blunt, "Prove it." Blunt and his attorney now have 10 days to poop.
I've read the motion and attachments. You should too, if you have a bunch of free time. Here it is.
After reading the brief and extensive attachments, I have to say that I don't see any evidence proving documents were withheld from Blunt. There may be an "other side to the story" and I think Blunt deserves a chance to present that. But unless he has something earth-shattering, frankly, it looks like his allegation -- repeated ad nauseam by Steve Cates in his Dakota Bleacon rag and also picked up by a couple other useful idiot bloggers (here and here and I'm sure by Rob Port at SayNothingBlog) -- that documents were withheld from Blunt and his attorney is a frivolous, nonsense claim. From the motion and attachments, it also looks like the ethics complaint against Feland is frivolous. Frankly, unless there's something significant that Feland hasn't addressed -- and I can't imagine what it would be, as she's attached a lot of correspondence and other documents to her motion -- I'll be surprised if the ethics grievance continues to be pursued. But I've been wrong before.
Once.
I've read several other ethics grievances written by Steve Cates -- local publisher of plagiarism and right-wing fringe nut propaganda (does $100,000 mean anything to you?) -- and the Bismarck Tribune story about the ethics grievance against the BCSA has Cates' stink all over it.
(This also raises the question "Is the Tribune still printing the Dakota Beacon?" I don't know, but I assume so.)
I'm so sure I recognize the stink of this story that I would bet $10 Cates' fingerprints are all over the ethics grievance against the BCSA. I'd also bet he was involved in "leaking" the documents to the useful dupes at the Tribune. Cates has made Blunt's "persecution" and this alleged withholding of "exculpatory" evidence his right-wing rag's crazed obsession. (Don't believe me? Go to the Dakota Beacon's website, and click on the "Sandy Blunt Persecution" category in the right column. See how obsessed this crackpot is.) And I'm familiar with other frivolous ethics complaints filed by Cates, and this looks like his handy work. I'm also familiar with his crack-pot-i-ness, as I've personally had to engage the police to get Cates' to stop harassing me at home. It's true.
Regardless of whether I win my proposed $10 bet, unless Blunt can -- within the next 10 days -- prove the information Feland has filed with the court is forged or otherwise false, it looks like the "exculpatory" information "withheld" from Blunt was neither "exculpatory" nor "withheld."
Let me summarize that, too. Blunt apparently claims a memo/summary written by an auditor in the State Auditor's Office was not provided to him before trial. He claims the "summary memo" proves (or tends to prove) his innocence. The BCSA's brief and numerous attachments seem to show that the memo actually did not prove Blunt's innocence (in fact, it looks like it might even further prove his guilt [which is kind of... interesting]). AND the BCSA explains that the memo is a summary of other information that WAS provided to Blunt. In other words, it was repetitive/duplicative. Blunt and his attorney already had all the supposedly "exculpatory" (though not exculpatory) information in the memo, though not in summary form. As is noted by Feland in her brief, Blunt's attorney even had an opportunity to cross examine witnesses based upon the identical, non-summary information, and did.
There's also the fact that the BCSA has an "open file" policy. BCSA claims it had sent a notice to Blunt's lawyer inviting him to stop in and read everything in the BCSA's file. I'm not a big fan of this argument, but it's out there. And, I'd note, the State Auditor's file is an open record, too. I read the whole file before Blunt's trial took place. I'd like to assume Blunt and/or his lawyer did too.
It appears Blunt has 10 days to explain why that summary of information he already had that appears to further prove his guilt was something he needed to help prove his innocence.
I'll be sitting on the edge of my seat, waiting for Blunt, a convicted felon, to respond.
ABC News is reporting this morning that John Hoeven is among the bipartisan list of senate candidates whoring selling themselves out to Wall Street.
This past spring, about two dozen bankers and hedge fund managers gathered at a New York City hotel to meet with a pair of Republican senators, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Texas' John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
According to media reports, the two powerful GOP leaders had come to let Wall Street know its help would be needed to win back control of the Senate in the upcoming midterm elections.
Apparently, Wall Street got the message.
[...]
The top 10 recipients of financial industry donations were: Illinois Republican Mark Kirk ($535,280); Ohio Republican Rob Portman ($394,096); Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey ($319,459); California Republican Tom Campbell ($314,900); Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. ($254,970); California Republican Carly Fiorina ($254,451); Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. ($252,781); Missouri Republican Roy Blunt ($229,912); Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo. ($181,350) and Indiana Republican Daniel Coats ($174,651).
Only three other candidates, each of them Republican, broke the $100K mark in Wall Street contributions. They were Michael Castle of Delaware, Trey Grayson of Kentucky and John Hoeven of North Dakota.
I'm a believer in public funding for presidential and congressional (house and senate) campaigns. Our political system has been so corrupted by big corporate money that it's hard to differentiate our government from its corporate masters anymore.
The Republicons have been calling for Earl Pomeroy to return money he got from someone's PAC recently. I had been wondering when those ethically pure Republicons were going to refund all the money they -- and John Hoeven and Adam Hamm, etc., etc. -- got from the family that "accidentally" hired 32 undocumented farm workers recently.
Now I'm wondering when Hoeven is going to stop selling his soul (or whatever soul he had left) to Mitch McConnell's buddies on Wall Street.
That's right, kids. You were thinking... "He's not gonna go there. He's not gonna go there. He's not gonna go there."
But then he went there.
I'm amazed people still watch Glenn Beck. I can honestly say I've never watched more than 2 or 3 minutes of his show, and I think I've probably done that three times. I don't get why he's relevant.
So you’re asking “What’s up with Gary Emineth?” Me too. HIS story is he’s going into the burrito business and doesn’t have time to be the Republican State Chairman any more. But he has time to campaign for Republican National Chairman. And he’s caught the eye of some (conservative) national media.
The Washington Times reported “With Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele facing a barrage of calls to resign, North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth, a social conservative, told The Washington Times on Friday he is quitting his post to prepare a possible challenge of Mr. Steele after November's midterm elections.”
So which is it, Gary? Burritos or the National Chairmanship? Something doesn’t smell right. Seems to me that Emineth’s chances of being National Republican Chairman would be enhanced if he could claim that his party back home claimed the U.S. Senate and U.S. House seats held by Senator Byron Dorgan and Congressman Earl Pomeroy, if that should come to pass, or at least got close enough to scare the North Dakota Democrats (more likely).
No, my guess is that Emineth got on the wrong side of Rick Berg after Berg’s campaign used a party list prior to his endorsement. Remember this story from the AP:
“Republican U.S. House candidate Rick Berg improperly used a closely guarded e-mail list of GOP supporters to promote himself over GOP rivals in a contest to unseat Democrat Earl Pomeroy, the state party chairman says. Gary Emineth said he was convinced that the state lawmaker's campaign used the list, which is off limits to candidates during party endorsement campaigns. Emineth said e-mails were received by people whose addresses he personally "salted" within the list as a way to spot misuse.”
Berg had to end up firing his campaign manager, who had previously worked for the State GOP and had apparently brought the party’s e-mail list with him to the Berg campaign. Complete with Emineth’s additions (His dog? His cat? His mother-in-law’s second cousin once removed?).
Berg was contrite. It was just days before the state Republican convention when Emineth dumped on him. Likely it was just days AFTER the state Republican convention when Berg told Emineth to take a hike.
Berg’s case is interesting, because the Republican party has a history of rejecting their own State Legislators who seek high office (witness David Nething and Gary Nelson). Of the current crop of Republican state officials (and there are a slug of them), only Wayne Stenehjem and Jack Dalrymple came directly from the Legislature, and Dalrymple was essentially picked by Hoeven, and then ratified by the convention. (Public Service Commissioner Tony Clark once served in the Legislature, but was an official in state government during the Ed Schafer administration before being elected. More on him in a minute.) So it might not have been so surprising to see Emineth dump on Berg right before the convention. He expected Kevin Cramer to be the U.S. House candidate, and thought he might even help Cramer along by involving Berg in a mini-scandal right before the delegates were about to choose.
But Berg fooled them. And now he has his revenge. Don’t underestimate this guy. He built a following in his two decades in the Legislature. He was elected Speaker of the House when he was just in his early 30’s, a position generally reserved for elder statesmen in the majority party. He then served as majority leader, and it was his legislative allies who organized their districts back home to get him the Republican nomination for Congress this year.
With John Hoeven moving into the “superstar” category (a la Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy), Berg is now titular head of the party.
So now you’re asking “What’s up with Tony Clark?” Me too. Actually, this one is a bit easier to figure.
First, Clark is a Rick Berg protégé. Rick helped him get elected to the Legislature back in the ‘90’s. Once Rick got rid of Emineth, Clark was his choice for interim party chairman (and giving Rick one more little slap at Clark’s fellow PSC’er Cramer). If things work out the way he and Rick have it figured—a Republican landslide in 2010--Clark’s going to be able to claim some credit for jumping into the breach, and his standing in the party is going to go way up. That’s important, because the GOP has a big bench, and Clark, if he wants to move on, needs to move nearer the head of that bench. He needs to break from the pack, and this is his chance. The pack includes Wayne Stenehjem, Jack Dalrymple, Kevin Cramer, Drew Wrigley, John Warford, Dennis Johnson, Brian Kalk, Adam Hamm, Corey Fong, David Sprynczynatyk, Connie Sprynczynatyk, and perhaps a legislator or two and a businessman or two. Did I leave anyone out? Remind me if I did, please.
So this is Tony Clark’s big move. He’s paying his dues, and he can afford to take a little heat from the Democrats and the media. That will be short-lived. But should Kent Conrad decide to retire in two years, as Byron Dorgan did this year (not likely, but Berg and Clark are gamblers), Clark becomes the odds-on favorite for that nomination. And then there’s the Governor’s office. If Hoeven wins the U.S. Senate seat this year as Berg and Clark expect, Jack Dalrymple gets a two year free ride as Governor, but don’t expect him to go unchallenged in 2012. Somebody on that list, probably more than one of them, will go after him.
Meanwhile, Emineth’s in the burrito kitchen. What’s up with that? This is fleischkuekle country.
Footnote: I got a fundraising letter from Rick this week. I was actually kind of excited about it, because on the envelope were pictures of President Obama, House Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Pomeroy, which made me think “Wow, this Rick Berg guy is a cool dude, to put pictures of three of my favorite politicians on the envelope he sent me. If he’s looking to get on my good side, this envelope is a good start.” Until I opened it and saw what he had to say about three of my favorite politicians on the inside. Problem was, in the letter he called me James, and in the 40 or so years we’ve known each other, he’s never called me James (a few other things, but not James). So I must have ended up on some mailing list that his campaign staff bought, where I’m listed as James. Because we’re kind of friends. It would be like me sending him a letter reading "Dear Richard." We’re both from Hettinger. I said earlier this year he was going to cause me a lot of heartburn on Election Day, because Hettinger has never had a Congressman, and I might be willing to be a little more loyal to my hometown than to my chosen political party. But then Kevin Carvell reminded me I was wrong—Hettinger had a three-term Congressman named Norton back in the early days of the 20th Century. So I’m off the hook. And if I have any extra money to send this year (also not likely), I’ll probably send it to the people on the outside of the envelope.
Bismarck Attorney Tim Purdon was confirmed tonight by the U.S. Senate as North Dakota's next U.S. Attorney. Purdon has been criticized by Republicans because he does not have his predecessor, Drew Wrigley's, experience as Executive Director of a political party, nor does he have Wrigley's experience as a speeding ticket prosecutor for the City of Philidelphia.
Contacted for comment on tonight's Senate action, Purdon had this to say: "No comment."
ABC News is reporting this morning that John Hoeven is among the bipartisan list of senate candidates 
Bismarck Attorney Tim Purdon was confirmed tonight by the U.S. Senate as North Dakota's next U.S. Attorney. Purdon has been criticized by Republicans because he does not have his predecessor, Drew Wrigley's, experience as Executive Director of a political party, nor does he have Wrigley's experience as a speeding ticket prosecutor for the City of Philidelphia. 
