Archive for the ‘RINOs’ Category

Susan Collins, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Rob Portman torpedoed health care reform. Rather than working constructively, this quartet told us what they objected to without telling us what they were for. Oh, they had a laundry list of demands. Yes, they threw around phrases like free market principles. Unfortunately, they didn’t put those principles into legislative language.

Of this quartet, only Sen. Lee has a bright future — as a Supreme Court justice. Sen. Paul is virtually worthless. Jonah Goldberg’s article highlights Sen. Paul’s duplicitousness. Recently, he told Chris Wallace why the Senate bill wasn’t good enough. Jonah explained it, saying “Every time healthcare proceedings move one step in Paul’s direction, he seems to move one step back. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas offered an amendment that would open up the market for more flexible and affordable plans, like Paul wants. No good, he told Fox’s Chris Wallace. Those plans are still in the ‘context’ of the Obamacare mandates. ‘My idea always was to replace it with freedom, legalize choice, legalize inexpensive insurance, allow people to join associations to buy their insurance.’ Sounds good. Except a provision for exempting associations from Obamacare mandates is already in the bill.”

Susan Collins and Shelly Moore-Capito aren’t helping, either:

GOP Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia said Tuesday they will vote to block repeal without an adequate replacement. Opposition from one more Republican senator would be enough to sink the measure.

Sen. Collins hasn’t put forward a single substantive proposal yet. It’s time she stopped being an obstructionist. It’s time she started solving problem.

I don’t want Collins and Capito thrown out. I just want them to start being more solutions-oriented. Add Lisa Murkowski to that list, too. At this point, I consider Sen. Murkowski and Sen. Collins as representing the special interests rather than the people living in their states. If you don’t believe me, think of it this way. They announced that they’d vote against slowing down rising health insurance premiums if they didn’t get promised that Planned Parenthood got fully funded.

At some point, don’t Republicans have the right to insist that Republicans act like Republicans at least half the time? At this point, Collins and Murkowski aren’t meeting that minimal threshold. Reagan used to say that your 80% friend isn’t your 20% enemy. That’s right. Still, your 50% friend isn’t a reliable friend. They’re people I wouldn’t trust.

Reid Epstein’s article on Sen. Cruz isn’t a flattering portrayal of Sen. Cruz. Frankly, Sen. Cruz’s statements sound whiny and jealous. When Sen. Cruz said “I understand that in the media newsrooms and in the Washington establishment circles, Marco is the chosen one”, it came across as if Sen. Cruz is jealous that Sen. Rubio is getting glowing attention from reporters. At some point, Sen. Cruz should examine why he isn’t getting positive coverage in the press.

It isn’t a secret that Sen. Cruz loves bragging that he isn’t liked by “the Washington cartel.” He wears like it’s a badge of honor. If Sen. Cruz wanted more positive coverage, it might help to not wear his disdain on his sleeve.

That isn’t to say that Sen. Cruz should thirst for the MSM’s approval. Conservatives shouldn’t want that. There’s a difference in degrees, though, between wanting fair coverage and wanting the MSM’s approval.

Launching into bitter-sounding diatribes won’t improve Sen. Cruz’s image with voters. Already, Sen. Rubio is reaching out to the entire Republican Party, something that Sen. Cruz should’ve already started. Instead, Sen. Cruz did this:

Later, inside the packed bar while a repeat of Wednesday night’s hockey games played on the flat-screen TVs, Mr. Cruz launched into another tirade against Mr. Rubio, seeking to cast doubt on the Florida senator’s argument he’s the most electable in the GOP field.

“The media adores him,” Mr. Cruz said. “These are the same people who told us Bob Dole was the electable one, that told us John McCain was the electable one, that told us Mitt Romney was the electable one. You’re always the electable one until you win the nomination, and then you cannot possibly win the election.”

First, comparing Sen. Rubio to Dole, McCain and Romney is like comparing Cadillac Escalades with a Prius. While they’re both vehicles, that’s where the similarities end. Rush Limbaugh never said that Dole, McCain or Romney was “a legitimate, full-throated conservative.”

What’s worse is that Sen. Cruz’s unscripted complaining diminishes him. Rather than being bitter, Sen. Cruz should work on not being as antagonistic as he’s been thus far this campaign.

The reason why the press likes Sen. Rubio is because he’s actually an interesting, positive person. What person, whether they’re a member of the media or not, doesn’t appreciate listening to calm-tempered people over bitter-sounding people?

Rather than complaining about Sen. Rubio, Sen. Cruz should try changing his approach towards the media. Loosen up a little. Don’t be an antagonist. It might help.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Former Minneota Gov. Al Quie has endorsed Marty Seifert’s bid to replace Gov. Mark Dayton. Quie was once barred from participating in GOP events, including the 2012 Republican National Convention. First, here’s Quie’s endorsement:

“I have been impressed by Seifert’s ability to connect with Minnesotans all over our state and his unique grasp of the issues that are important for our future,” said Quie. “We need a leader who is dedicated to justice and he will appoint judges and justices who respect the law and the Constitution, have radical integrity, and who will respect the litigants.”

Quie is urging his fellow Republicans to vote for Seifert in the upcoming August 12th primary in order to defeat Dayton.

“Just as I defeated a DFL incumbent to become governor, Marty Seifert has the ability to bring people together and win in November.”

The notion that Seifert “has the ability to bring people together” is only credible if you think he pushed some of his supporters into supporting someone other than him when he tried to prevent Republicans from endorsing a candidate for governor.

Further, a substantial number of Seifert supporters also support judicial elections. Quie is the face of retention elections, which opposes judicial elections.

The reality is that Quie hasn’t been relevant to Republican Party politics for almost a generation. He’s from the RINO wing of the Minnesota GOP. Here’s more on why Quie was disciplined:

MPR reports that delegates to the party’s state central committee meeting voted 59-55 Saturday to bar 18 Republicans from party activities for two years, including the 2012 Republican National Convention.

The list of those who supported Independence Party candidate Tom Horner includes former Govs. Arne Carlson and Al Quie, former U.S. Sen. Dave Durenberger and donor George Pillsbury.

If Marty Seifert wants Quie’s endorsement, that’s his option. If Quie wants to endorse Seifert, that’s fine, too. The question is whether Quie’s support will have a positive impact on Republicans. I’m betting it won’t because most of the people who will vote in August’s primary don’t know who Quie is because he served before they were born. Here’s Seifert’s spin on Quie’s endorsement:

“Governor Quie has been universally praised for being a public servant willing to take risks, offering out-of-the-box ideas for education and judicial reforms,” said Seifert. “I am looking forward to hearing more of his advice on how to make Minnesota an even better place.”

Now that’s professional spin. Saying that Quie is “willing to take risks”, I suspect, is Seifert’s way of saying he’s supported former Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner’s tax increases and Horner’s candidacy. Nothing says ‘Let’s pull people together’ like getting endorsed by one of the erstwhile Republicans who cost Tom Emmer the election in 2010.

Compare that with State Sen. Michelle Benson endorsing Jeff Johnson, the endorsed GOP gubernatorial candidate. Sen. Benson is a talented legislator with impeccable conservative credentials and who’s very much relevant in Republican Party politics.

The latest KSTP-SurveyUSA poll showed Seifert trailing Jeff Johnson and Kurt Zellers by 10 points. There’s no reason to think the endorsement battle will help Seifert close that gap in any substantial way.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Rep. Tom Cotton’s op-ed offers a scathing critique of the Senate immigration ‘reform’ bill. It’s the type of op-ed that the useful idiots in the media have ignored. Here’s part of Rep. Cotton’s powerful argument:

In the bill, legalization comes with trivial preconditions. Pay a “fine”? Yes, but it’s less than $7 per month and can be waived. Pay back taxes? Only if a tax lien has already been filed, which will be rare for undocumented work. Pass a criminal-background check? Yes, with a gaping exception allowed for illegal immigrants with up to two misdemeanors—or more, if the convictions occurred on the same day—even if these were pleaded down from felony offenses and included serious offenses such as domestic violence and drunken driving.

Rep. Cotton stated earlier in the op-ed that America is a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. The Democrat-RINO bill is filled with loopholes to essentially turn America into a nation of immigrants sans the nation of laws part. While it’s true there is a border surge mentioned in the bill, it’s entirely slight of hand gimmickry:

Further, the bill explicitly lets the secretary of Homeland Security decline to build a fence in a specific location if she decides it’s not “appropriate.”

That means Janet Napolitano, not Congress, has the final say on building the fence. Anyone that thinks she’ll build the fence, hire the border patrol agents, then enforce all of the immigration statutes is kidding themselves.

The day that happens is the day I’ll look for pigs flying in V-formation.

That isn’t the only major flaw with the Senate legislation. Here’s more:

Instead, the bill throws billions of dollars at the border for new border-patrol agents (though not until 2017) and sensor technologies. These solutions are complements, not substitutes, for a fence. When I was a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, my units relied on guards and technology to secure our bases, but the first line of defense was always a physical perimeter.

Let’s remember that the border fence provision is mostly illusion. Let’s understand that the Democrats don’t want the immigration bill passed unless it doesn’t fix the problem:

After 10 years, the CBO predicts, the illegal-immigrant population will have declined to only eight million from today’s 12 million. So much for solving the problem. All we’re doing is setting up the next amnesty.

In other words, the Senate Democrat-RINO bill is just Simpson-Mazoli Part II, with Simpson-Mazoli Part III anticipated in 2020.

If enforcement fails, what’s more likely: that legalized persons won’t become citizens or that future Congresses will simply relax or eliminate the required “triggers”? If past is prologue, we know the answer.

Forget about questioning if enforcement fails. It’s guaranteed to fail. Even if the fence gets built, we’ll have 8,000,000 new illegal immigrants in the US within another decade. That isn’t a solution. It’s an opportunity for Democrats to return in 6-8 years and lie about how Republicans hate Hispanics.

The solution is simple. Build the double fence from California to the Gulf of Mexico, then enforce the laws that are already on the books. That’s 80% of the solution. The rest are minor tweaks.

Friday night, the trio of David Schultz, Kathryn Pearson & Stacey Hunter-Hecht were guest panelists on Almanac. Predictably, Dr. Schultz bemoaned the fact that Republican moderates were nowhere to be found in the House on immigration.

This isn’t a big thing because Dr. Schultz hasn’t had a new idea in years, possibly decades. Further, Dr. Schultz has been a shill for the DFL for nearly all that time.

The problem with the Senate amnesty bill isn’t that there aren’t enough GOP moderates in the House. The problem with the Senate amnesty bill is that conservatives know it isn’t a solution to the problem it’s meant to fix. I wrote here about the gaping hole in the ‘Border Trickle’ in the Senate Amnesty Bill:

On page 35, line 24 of the new bill, a provision was inserted that says Napolitano–who already believes the border is secure–can decide against building a fence if she chooses not to erect one:

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.

In other words, House conservatives see this as a sham provision. It doesn’t secure the border. It doesn’t fix the problem. Its only purpose was to provide political cover for weak-kneed Senate Republicans.

House Republicans shouldn’t budge from their demand for a real solution to immigration. That means a border fence. That means 5 straight years of enforcing current immigration laws. That means no catch and release. That means implementing E-Verify.

Dr. Schultz’s lamentations about the lack of House GOP moderates is silliness parading as thoughtful policymaking. The Senate Amnesty Bill has a gaping hole in it. Milton Friedman, the late, great economist, was fond of asking where the halfway point between right and wrong was.

When the gap between House conservatives and the Senate Amnesty Bill are this immense, Dr. Friedman’s question should be modified to ask what the halfway point is between a solution and a disaster.

The Senate Amnesty Bill is a disaster. The CBO says that it doesn’t stop illegal immigration, meaning that the Republicans who voted for the Senate bill voted for a bill that will cause us to revisit the issue 5-7 years from now.

If I were advising House Republicans on this issue, I’d advise them to highlight the failure of the Senate bill to fix the problem. I’d send Speaker Boehner and Rep. Trey Gowdy out daily to any TV news program to talk about the need for a real solution. I’d have them pick a fight with Chuck Schumer, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. I’d have them ask why they support a bill that doesn’t fix the problem.

It’s really that simple.

When the Senate votes on the immigration bill, they’ll be voting for a 1,200 page monstrosity. They won’t be voting on a solution to the immigration problem. Unserious politicians like Harry Reid, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, John Hoeven and Bob Corker will say that their bill is the solution but it isn’t. I wrote about it in this post. John Hinderaker wrote about the bill’s glaring shortcomings in this post. Thankfully, Greta van Susteren wrote the outline to a true immigration solution in this post:

1/ PROBLEM: every day we get people entering the USA illegally (or staying beyond visas – I will get to this later.)

SIMPLE SOLUTION: SEAL THE BORDERS. Don’t tell me we don’t have the money – we do. We can stop doing stupid thinks like the IRS, in just 2 years, spending $50 million on conferences involving line dancing and trinkets. (They don’t have receipts for the other years and you can expect the same absurd waste.) We can sell empty government buildings (the number of buildings is staggering!) and everyone, including the President, can tighten the belt (is this really the right time to be going to Africa to the tune of $60-100 million dollars?) Cost overruns and waste at the Pentagon are breathtakingly large…and I could go on and on and on. We just need to start being smart about our money.

We can figure out how to seal the borders (it just isn’t that hard!) and we can afford it.

Greta’s post highlights the problem. Money isn’t the problem. Political will is the problem.

2/ PROBLEM: What about the 11 MILLION IN THE USA ILLEGALLY NOW? If you speak to the 11 million, you know their big fear and that is that ICE will deport them. That is what THEY want solved.

SIMPLE SOLUTION: give them green cards (we already know how to do that and have a mechanism) but make them ineligible for citizenship since there should be some price for violating our laws. They can stay and work forever and be good neighbors with green cards, but they can’t be citizens for violating our immigration law and then getting lucky.

This is sensible. If people knowingly came to the US illegally, they shouldn’t have a path to citizenship.

ICE is criticizing the Corker-Hoeven amendment:

After Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) admitted the amendment he and Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) offered to the immigration bill will not improve immigration law enforcement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) National Council president Chris Crane told Breitbart News he is shocked lawmakers would still want to pass the bill.

“So that’s the answer from U.S. Senators,” Crane, an ICE agent and a former Marine, told Breitbart News exclusively on Sunday morning. “They know the bill is bad but plan to pass it anyway? With billions of taxpayer dollars to be spent and the safety of the public on the line, Senators plan to pass the buck to the House with hopes they might fix it? Anti-enforcement special interests have succeeded in pressuring the Senate from doing what’s best for America. This is why America has lost faith in its lawmakers.”

Crane is right. This bill is fatally flawed. It doesn’t secure the border. It isn’t that it doesn’t secure it enough. It’s that it doesn’t secure the border. Period.

Finally, Hugh Hewitt is right about this:

If the answer is “We don’t want to waste money on unnecessary double fencing,” my response is that the bill should die because the amendments’ sponsors simply do not understand the importance of this provision and thus have no real intention of meeting the demands of the border-security conservatives. Fence-proponents do not care about a few more hundreds of millions or even billions, and they really don’t believe that cost is driving the opposition.

I and almost every double-sided fence-advocate I know or have talked with don’t trust anyone in D.C. to do anything not specifically written into the law and done so with exacting detail. In fact, they believe every authority to water down border security will in fact be employed –as has been the case since 2006. This is the rational, indeed compelling attitude to have towards this draft law: The rhetoric about it means nothing. The legislative language means everything.

Why would we trust the government at this point? More to the point: Why would we trust Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham, Harry Reid, Janet Napolitano and Bob Corker? I wouldn’t trust those people if my life depended on it.

Why would anyone trust Janet Napolitano on building the fence? Apparently, there’s a bunch of idiots masquerading as GOP senators who think she can be trusted to build the fence. Chief among these idiots are Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio, Bob Corker and John Hoeven.

What’s appalling is that Lindsey Graham was foolish enough to say that the bill’s security measures are better than he could’ve imagined. While that might be true, that’s only testimony to the fact that Sen. Graham sets a low bar to be impressed with. Check out Matthew Boyle’s article to see what’s allowed:

On page 35, line 24 of the new bill, a provision was inserted that says Napolitano–who already believes the border is secure–can decide against building a fence if she chooses not to erect one:

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.

This should be a poison pill for Republicans. Sen. Graham, however, thinks it’s reasonable because requiring a border fence is a deal breaker with Democrats. I think that’s spin. I’d bet they’d cave if Republicans forced them to defend against securing the border first.

Let’s suppose I’m wrong, though. Let’s suppose that it’s a deal breaker with Democrats. That’s fine. If they want the US-Mexican border to be as secure as the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, let them defend that position. I’d love hearing Sen. Schumer and Sen. Reid explain why a fence isn’t needed to secure the border.

Personally, I’d love to see Sen. Graham get defeated in a primary, preferably by Rep. Trey Gowdy. It’s one thing to have a big tent party. It’s quite another to have politicians who cave and give their opponents everything they wanted from the start.

This is nothing more than Simpson-Mazoli, Part II. It doesn’t stop illegal immigration. It helps import tons of low-skill, low-wage illegal immigrants into the United States at a time when unemployment is still high, wages are stagnant and the economy is still struggling.

Charlie Crist used to be known as a rising star in the GOP. When he endorsed Sen. McCain right before the Florida Primary, it essentially doomed the GOP to Sen. McCain being their nominee. Just 9 months later, the United States was shackled with President-Elect Obama’s disastrous economic policies.

Crist’s stock has fallen mightily since then. The minute he announced his intention to run for the open Florida Senate seat, John Cornyn and the NRSC endorsed him, expecting him to be the presumptive next senator from Florida.

Instead, Crist ran into a genuine rising star in the GOP in Marco Rubio. Despite his massive advantages in fundraising capabilities and statewide name recognition, Sen. Rubio crushed Crist.

Pretending to still be a national leader, Crist penned this op-ed to endorse President Obama:

We often remind ourselves to learn the lessons of the past, lest we risk repeating its mistakes. Yet nearly as often, our short-term memory fails us. Many have already forgotten how deep and daunting our shared crisis was in the winter of 2009, as President Obama was inaugurated. It was no ordinary challenge, and the president served as the nation’s calm through a historically turbulent storm.

The president’s response was swift, smart and farsighted. He kept his compass pointed due north and relentlessly focused on saving jobs, creating more and helping the many who felt trapped beneath the house of cards that had collapsed upon them.

He knew we had to get people back to work as quickly as possible — but he also knew that the value of a recovery lies in its durability. Short-term healing had to be paired with an economy that would stay healthy over the long run. And he knew that happens best by investing in the right places.

President Obama’s stimulus was directed at his biggest political allies, his campaign’s most prolific bundlers. The result was the worst economic recovery since FDR’s, the biggest annual deficits in our nation’s history and the worst economic future since the Great Depression.

President Obama owns the worst economic trifecta in US history: the biggest deficits, the worst regulatory overload and the bleakest economic outlook.

Economic growth in a second Obama term will be as dismal as they are now. Businesses won’t invest their capital because of this administration’s hostility towards capitalists. The ACA will continue to depress job creation. President Obama’s EPA will continue their attempt to kill the coal and natural gas industries.

The PEU bailouts included in the stimulus didn’t create jobs. The loans to President Obama’s most prolific bundlers didn’t create jobs at Solyndra. They just created the environment for the greatest electoral rebellion in recent history.

On Nov. 2, 2010, the American people booted the people out because they’d had enough of politics as usual.

Thanks to President Obama’s deficits, we can’t afford ‘cronyism as usual.’ Charlie Crist’s always been an unprincipled politician. Thanks to Sen. Rubio’s victory, he’ll be remembered as an unprincipled politician.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The increasingly desperate coalition of progressives trying to mount a campaign against the Photo ID ballot question have enlisted 2 politicians from Minnesota’s past for the fight:

Former Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale and former Republican Gov. Arne Carlson became the public faces Tuesday of a fight against a proposed Minnesota constitutional amendment requiring voters to present photo IDs at the polls.

The legislature voted to improve Minnesota’s election system, something that delegates to the DFL State Convention agreed was needed.

At the DFL State Convention, delegates debated whether to allow absentee ballots for their presidential straw poll, starting in 2016.Here’s what Rick Varko, a delegate to the DFL convention from SD-64, said about using absentee ballots:

I don’t believe that the Central Committee can come up with any mechanism that will genuinely prevent somebody from printing out a stack of absentee ballots, submitting them and getting them improper votes for a candidate.

Rick Varko’s statement implies that it’s possible to stuff ballot boxes. What Varko’s statement implies, Chuck Repke’s statement says explicitly:

You’re setting yourself up for absolute insanity at the caucus level. The potential exists for someone from the Citizens United type to pack our caucuses with bought and paid for ballots. Absolutely guarantee the destruction of the precinct caucus process. There is no way to protect against that, folks, because we allow anyone to attend the caucus. We would therefore also have to let any absentee ballot to attend our precinct caucuses, regardless of which Koch Brother paid for it.

The trio of high profile politicians that Our Vote Our Future picked as their co-chairs have high name recognition. Unfortunately, their information can’t be verified. In fact, it’s easily discredited.

The biggest disappointment about this organization is that it’s dishonest. This is a great example of their misinformation:

End Same-Day Voter Registration As We Know It.
Requiring a Photo ID to vote would end same-day registration as we know it, affecting the half-a-million voters who use it in general elections.

That’s exceptionally misleading. While it’s true that approximately 500,000 people use EDR on general elections, photo ID simply requires an adjustment on these voters’ behalf. It isn’t impossible for same day registrants to vote. People that use EDR have the option of presenting a state-issued Photo ID. Those people can cast a ballot immediately. People who use EDR that don’t have a state-issued Photo ID can cast a provisional ballot. People casting a provisional ballot then have to return with their state-issued Photo ID, at which time their provisional ballot is counted. Here’s why that’s a worthwhile, important provision:

According to MN Secretary of State information, after the 2008 presidential election, about 26,000 postal verification cards sent to same day voter registrants were returned as undeliverable…no such person or no such address. Meantime, their votes were cast and counted! In total, during the 2008 calendar year, about 38,000 were returned as undeliverable.

According to Our Day, Our Vote’s website, approximately 500,000 people use EDR (Election Day Registration) each general election. That means between 1 in 15 and 1 in 20 EDRs are filled out by people that we can’t prove exist. What thoughtful person thinks that these people aren’t committing voter fraud?

Here’s another misleading tidbit of information:

Doesn’t Solve a Problem.
Voter impersonation is the only type of voting fraud Photo ID would prevent. And there have been exactly zero cases of voter impersonation convictions here in Minnesota. ZERO.

It’s impossible to find what Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Mansky refuse to look for. IMPOSSIBLE.

Also, that statement is totally misleading. The PVCs that were returned weren’t filled out by people making honest mistakes. They were filled out by people intent on committing voter fraud.

Photo ID would’ve prevented voter fraud because the people that didn’t present a state-issued Photo ID would’ve cast a provisional ballot that’s only counted after the person’s identity has been verified.

Also, voter impersonation isn’t the only type of existing voter fraud that Photo ID will stop. It’ll prevent this type of voter fraud:

RICK SMITHSON: On this particular night, between 10 and 13 people showed up for same day registration. They had all claimed that the local laundromat address as their residence. When we challenged it, we called the State Auditors Office and we were told that there was nothing we could do about it. We were told that we couldn’t interfere with their right to vote but we could make note of it.

Three things are inescapable:

  1. Voter fraud exists.
  2. Not requiring a provisional ballot for EDRs makes counting corrupt ballots inevitable.
  3. Only Photo ID will eliminate this form of election fraud.

Vice President Mondale, Gov. Carlson and Rep. Penny can talk till they’re blue in the face about how Minnesota’s election system is airtight. Their statements can’t refute the facts I’ve just presented. This lie is so disgraceful that it utterly discredits these so-called elder statesmen:

The Photo ID amendment seeks to take away the voting rights of law-abiding citizens, preventing the elderly, our troops stationed abroad, students, people of color, veterans and countless others from voting.

There isn’t an ounce of truth in any of those statements. That’s typical of the Left, though. It’s their habit to accuse their opponents of being evil when their opponents defeat them in a fair debate.

Whether it’s calling people racists or whether it’s alleging that conservatives want to take people’s right to vote away, it’s inevitable that progressives will attempt to villify people they disagree with. Don’t pay attention to the 3 high profile politicians. Pay attention to the discredited agenda they’re pushing.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s a long-held belief that the DFL best represents northern Minnesota. To a degree, that’s still true, especially in the parts that environmentalists rule the roost.

Chip Cravaack’s victory proved that the door is opening for the GOP. Carolyn McElfatrick’s victory over Loren Solberg is proof that that door might be open wider than the DFL is willing to admit.

I wrote this post in the hopes of proving that the DFL isn’t supportive of the Iron Rangers. Tonight, I’m taking a different approach. Conservation Minnesota has a team of strategic advisors. Here’s who serves as strategic advisors:
Arne Carlson

Dave Durenberger

Dean Johnson

Dee Long

Jim Ramstad

Paul Aasen

Margaret Anderson-Kelliher

Tom Horner

Here’s Conservation Minnesota’s agenda:

Conservation Minnesota, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy are targeting the proposed PolyMet mine near Hoyt Lakes and the proposed Twin Metals mine near Ely.

Outsiders to the Range are trying to tell Rangers what’s best for them. That’s insulting. The only strategic advisor that doesn’t live in the Twin Cities is Dean Johnson. The rest of them live in the Twin Cities. What do they know about the Iron Range’s needs?

Let’s compare that with the GOP. Chip Cravaack has done a terrific job staying in touch with his constituents. They appreciate the job he’s done, too, as evidenced by the fact that he’s had an army of volunteers at all of the parades on the range.

The pictures in this post say that 15 volunteers showed up at the Peter Mitchell Days Parade in Babbitt. The DFL was nowhere to be found.

Whether the Range tips to the GOP in 2012, 2014 or 2016, it will happen. The DFL’s days of Range domination are coming to a halt. Chip Cravaack’s and Carolyn McElfatrick’s victories are just the leading indicators of that shift.

The bottom line is this: The Rangers can vote for DFL candidates that align themselves with anti-mining special interest groups from the Twin Cities. Otherwise, they can vote for GOP candidates that will vote to improve the economy on the range.

That’s a pretty straightforward pick.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,