Archive for the ‘Environment’ Category
Eric Foster is the chief pollster for Foster McCollum White & Baydoun. The first thing that caught my attention was that Mitt Romney leads President Obama by a thin margin of 47%-46%. As stunning as that was, this question got my undivided attention:
Ballot Proposal 12-2, the “Protect Our Jobs” proposed constitutional amendment would establish a new constitutional right for public and private sector employees to organize and bargain collectively with employers, Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively and override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment by adding section 28 to Article I and amending Article XI section 5 to the state Constitution. If the election was held today, how would you vote on Proposal 12-2, the “Protect Our Jobs” amendment?
Vote yes on the “Protect Our Jobs” Amendment: 41.2%
Vote no on the “Protect Our Jobs” Amendment: 51.3%
If Ballot Proposal 12-2 is defeated, that will be a stinging defeat for Big Labor. Coming right after Scott Walker defeated them in Wisconsin, they’ll be wounded for quite some time.
I thought this was interesting, too:
Ballot Proposal 12-3, the Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs constitutional amendment that would require utilities to obtain at least 25 percent of electricity from clean renewable energy sources (wind, solar, biomass and hydropower) by 2025; limit how much utilities can charge consumers for the cost of complying with this requirement; and require the legislature to create laws to encourage the development of Michigan clean energy jobs. If the election was held today, how would you vote on Proposal 12-3 the “Clean Energy initiative” amendment?
Vote yes for the “Clean Energy initiative” amendment: 35.91%
Vote no for the “Clean Energy initiative” amendment: 57.49%
Vote yes for the “Clean Energy initiative” amendment: 6.6%
If Ballot Proposal 12-3 is defeated by this type of margin, it will be a harsh defeat for environmentalists. It would be a major victory for homeowners.
Finally, this ballot question is interesting, too:
Ballot Proposal 12-4 is a constitutional amendment Proposal to establish the Michigan Quality Home Care Council and provide collective bargaining for in-home care workers.
This proposal would allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC) and require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care and authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment. If the election was held today, how would you vote on Proposal 12-4 the “home care council & collective bargaining” amendment?
Vote yes for the proposal 12-4 amendment: 41.08%
Vote no for the proposal 12-4 amendment: 53.21%
Undecided for the proposal 12-4 amendment: 5.72%
Sorry for sounding like a broken record but rejecting this amendment would be a stinging defeat for the SEIU and AFSCME.
The fact that Michigan voters are poised to defeat 3 constitutional amendments that liberals really wanted explains, at least to me, why Mitt Romney is competitive in Michigan. If those amendments are defeated and Mitt Romney wins Michigan’s 16 electoral votes, conservatives will have plenty to squawk about Wednesday morning.
Conservatives didn’t disagree with Vice President Biden when he told a gathering in Council Bluffs, Iowa that the middle class had gotten squeezed the past 4 years. Gas was $1.84 a gallon when President Obama took office. It’s now at $3.79 a gallon. That’s the direct result of President Obama’s tightfistedness in granting permits for new drilling projects.
Electricity and natural gas prices have jumped, too, thanks in large part to President Obama’s EPA restricting coal mining and fracking. Other EPA regulations are causing coal-fired power plants to shut down or to announce that they’re shutting down.
This picture tells another important story:
It’s incredible seeing a picture showing gas prices at almost $6.00 a gallon. Those prices aren’t squeezing the middle class. They’re demolishing the middle class.
While other factors are driving up California’s gas prices, including a statewide cap and trade system, President Obama’s policies still strongly contributed to this expensive energy trend.
President Obama’s energy policies are one of the biggest contributors to struggling families’ plight. While President Obama’s policies can’t be blamed for California’s $6 gas and closed stations, they’re certainly the chief cause for the nation’s high gas prices.
Had President Obama, then-Speaker Pelosi and Senate passed their cap and trade law, which was high on their list of priorities, it’s indisputable that the nation’s gas prices would mirror California’s. They certainly would mirror California’s prices.
It’s time to flush this administration’s policies from our system. We can’t afford 4 more years of rising gas prices, electric bills, high unemployment, explosive deficits and falling household incomes.
We can’t afford the sight of pictures fo $6 a gallon gasoline.
A new 501(C)(4) organization named Mined in America was literally created last week. In the weeks ahead, it’s likely that they’ll do something that President Obama can’t afford to have happen. They’re planning on getting the word out that President Obama’s administration have implemented rules that make producing cheap domestic energy almost impossible. This post explains what Mined in America is about:
America is a country of producers, makers and creators. It’s in our nature to work together and help each other grow, that’s just part of what makes our country great. But by now we’ve all seen the news, the American economy is perched in a precarious place, and in order for us to continue to thrive we have to do something to stabilize our economy.
One thing we know for sure is that American manufacturing is key to growing our economy. Despite signs of a manufacturing revival over the past two years the facts are clear: we need to do more to get America back to work.
Mined in America is just what the energy doctor ordered. This organization sounds like they’re determined to fight the EPA. That means challenging this administration in states critical to President Obama’s re-election. A large portion of the economies in battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia come from mining.
Lots of the independent voters in those states don’t care whether President Obama is a Republican or Democrat. They’ll care about whether President Obama supports a robust increase in domestic coal mining.
People don’t need to question whether Mined in America will mix it up. This article ends that speculation:
Barack Obama’s chances of being reelected hinge on winning over blue-collar voters in the Midwest, but those efforts may have hit a hurdle—or run into a mine shaft, more like it—since a new nonprofit in the region started aggressively going after his administration. Mined in America, a 501(c)(4) created by an unlikely alliance of mine workers and mine owners, is running a series of attack ads against the Environmental Protection Agency, accusing the regulator of stifling resourcing mining that could boost the economy.
“Washington doesn’t get it,” reads one ad running across the region. “Remind environmental regulators to make Ohio jobs America’s priority.”
Also planned are calls and mailers to 500,000 voters in swing districts in the swing states of Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to ask them to push Obama for job growth over more environmental rules. An online and social media campaign has begun as well.
After reading that information, there’s no question whether MIA is willing to push back against President Obama’s EPA.
“It is not about President Obama winning or losing,” says Maurice Daniel, the executive director of the coalition, which includes manufacturers and labor unions. A lifelong Democrat, Daniel was the former political director for Al Gore when Gore was vice president. “We are not advocating for one candidate or another. What we are doing is educating the population about the issues at stake.”
Those issues have to do with the way the EPA implements mine safety rules. Mined in America says the rules are arbitrary and unfair. It points to the Spruce Mine project in West Virginia, which the Army Corps of Engineers approved but whose permit was then revoked by the EPA, and to Pebble Mine in Alaska, where it says the EPA is blocking a permit before one has been officially submitted.
The terms capricious and heavyhanded leap to mind in characterizing the EPA’s politics-driven decisions. MIA is hitting the ground running, with its focus on the right priorities.
What’s happening in those states started happening in Minnesota months ago. Thanks to Chip Cravaack’s willingness to build a coalition between unions and management, this coalition has started confronting the environmentalists. Their concern isn’t whether a politician has a D or R behind their names. Their concern is whether they’re enthusiastic supporters of mining.
Apparently, that movement is picking up steam.
When DFL opponent Jeff Anderson criticized Rick Nolan for not supporting miners, DFL congressional candidate Rick Nolan announced an initiative for a mining institute:
DFL congressional candidate Rick Nolan proposed on Wednesday, July 18, development of a new federal technical institute on mining and the environment to help the industry overcome production and environmental issues to create more jobs, an idea immediately panned by his opponents as expensive and ineffective.
Nolan said the institute would help push applied research that would help mining companies overcome technical problems such as how to extract more mineral from the same rock, but also to overcome environmental issues like reducing waste rock and making sure mine runoff doesn’t damage local waterways.
That’s a nice-sounding proposal if it wasn’t so expensive and ineffective. This paragraph is the key to understanding why the institute wouldn’t help miners:
Nolan said the institute should be built on Minnesota’s Iron Range and would create hundreds of jobs on its campus as well as attract mining research investment to the region as it worked to promote the local and national mining industry.
I can’t imagine any miners getting employed on the institute’s campus. I suspect that’s why Jeff Anderson criticized Nolan’s initiative:
Anderson blasted the Nolan plan as wasteful federal spending that would create no immediate mining jobs, and he challenged Nolan to support immediate regulation reduction such as changing the state’s long-standing sulfate standard for wild rice lakes and rivers. That standard currently is being upheld by the Environmental Protection Agency under the federal Clean Water Act. Sulfate often is a byproduct of mining. Anderson said the standard threatens several taconite and copper mining projects if not changed.
“While I support the idea of doing more research into evolving mining technologies, the people seeking jobs in this district cannot feed their families with studies,” Anderson said. “They need jobs. They need good, livable-wages jobs.”
The point of Anderson’s criticism is that Nolan’s initiative is about creating political cover, not mining jobs.
During a DFL debate, Anderson highlighted the fact that there are tighter regulations for the mines than for wastewater treatment plants. There isn’t a scientific reason for having separate standards. There is a political reason for it, though, specifically to prevent mining.
Rick Nolan supports Twin Cities environmentalists more than the miners from the Range.
While Mr. Nolan was siding with Twin Cities environmentalists, Chip’s fought for creating high-paying mining jobs:
Today, the Cravaack for Congress Campaign issued a statement regarding the continued assault on Minnesota mining jobs by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which the Agency proposes a rejection of the Minnesota State Implementation Plan put forward by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for upgrading taconite facilities.
The rule, which imposes an unrealistic timeline for compliance, would threaten Minnesota’s mining industry and the over 40,000 residents who depend on the mining industry for their livelihood.
“The silence from the DFL and Mr. Nolan on this issue has been deafening, and without surprise. On August 13, two days before the EPA’s rule was announced, Twin Cities–based Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness publically opposed the state plan and mining jobs in Minnesota,” said Michael Bars, Cravaack’s Press Secretary.
The only question left to answer is whether Mr. Nolan will be willing to admit he’s representing the Twin Cities environmentalists or if he’ll deny that until after the election.
Jim Graves is a portrait of someone who says one thing, then thinks the opposite. Graves told me that he’s pro free market. Then he told me that he thinks the ACA is “built on free market principles.” The free market doesn’t tell a person they have to buy something, then tell them what bells and whistles that something has to have.
To quote Andy Aplikowski, free markets don’t need thousands of IRS agents to make sure you do what you’re told to do:
The Government does’t need to hire an army of tax agents to enforce a free market based reform. And the Government doesn’t expressly lay out the parameters and scope of a free market plan.
Mr. Graves told Jack and Ben that he isn’t really a Democrat. He’s just running as one so he has a chance at winning. That’s BS. He’s a hard core liberal who made lots of money.
What other explanation is there for a man who thinks that global warming is manmade? If he believes that global warming is manmade and that it’s a problem worth solving, what’s his solution? The only conclusion is that he’s for cap and trade. That’s a hardline liberal position.
When Tarryl ran against Michele in 2010, one of her first visits was to Netroots Nation, the gathering of left wing kooks. Daily Kos published this letter from Jim Graves.
One of the things Graves continues harping on is Michele Bachmann’s ‘witch hunt’:
Watching Michele Bachmann’s McCarthy-like witch-hunt unfold over the past few weeks has been truly disturbing. Her baseless attacks upon honorable, hard-working Americans is not only designed to divide us through hate and fear, it weakens our ability to take on the real challenges facing our nation today.
Mr. Graves’ witch hunt meme is getting tiresome. It’s been discredited by terrorist expert Andrew McCarthy and former Muslim Brotherhood terrorist Walid Shoebat. Newt Gingrich discredited DC elites with impeccable logic and a relentless dose of reality:
This desperate avoidance of reality is not new. After Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted, “Allahu Akbar” (“God is great”) in Fort Hood, Texas, and killed 12 soldiers and one Army civilian while wounding 29 others, there was pressure to avoid confronting his acts as inspired by his support for radical Islamism.
An American of Palestinian descent, Hasan had been in touch with a radical American cleric in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki. He declared Hasan a hero. Al-Awlaki was himself declared a “specially designated global terrorist” and, with presidential approval, was killed by a predator missile.
Yet, despite the evidence, Wikipedia reports, “One year after the Fort Hood shooting, the motivations of the perpetrator were not yet established.”
In short, Jim Graves might know how to build and run hotels but he’s oblivious to facts, especially as it relates to free markets, terrorism and science.
Simply put, Jim Graves isn’t qualified to be a congressman. I’d want him on an economic development commission but I wouldn’t want him as a congressman.
Eleven days ago, DFL-endorsed candidate Jim Graves stopped at the Oxpitality Tuesday gathering at the Red Carpet. When Mr. Graves stopped past my table, we talked about his thoughts on energy independence and health care. In my opinion, those are the two biggest things preventing the economy from taking off.
My article in the Examiner about the conversation must’ve gotten under Mr. Graves’ skin because he sent me an email last weekend. Here’s something that he said that caught my attention:
Another point you seem to have brought up is how someone could be for a free market and not be totally opposed to the ACA. You imply that the ACA is completely incompatible with the free market. I know the ACA is long and complex, but one really needs to take a close and objective look at it and, of course, it is not perfect nor the final solution by any means. However, one must acknowledge that insurance companies are still independent entities. The various layers of health care providers are still independent entities.
First, it should be noted that he told me that “Whether people like it or not, government is already part of the health care system.” Government interference in the form of telling health insurance companies, or any companies for that matter, what products they must sell to stay licensed can’t be reconciled with free market principles.
Whether you think that’s a good or bad thing, it doesn’t fit the principles of a free market.
Here’s the statement Mr. Graves’ campaign released on the ACA:
St. Cloud, MN – “Rather than continue politicizing the extremely serious health care issue, Jim Graves believes it is time to come together in a bi-partisan manner to address bending the health care cost curve” said campaign spokesperson Donald McFarland. “Jim believes in working towards real solutions by pursuing an outcome based reimbursement model that incorporates prevention, transparency and free market principals. All Americans want the same things for themselves and their families. We all want sick children to get the care they need and our seniors to be protected. Working together across party lines, we can bring down the cost of health care so that it is both affordable and accessible.”
That’s some of the finest Klobucharspeak this side of Sen. Klobuchar I’ve seen in months. Since he doesn’t have an issues page outlining his policy perscriptions for our nation’s most difficult challenges, I don’t know what that statement means.
I know some of the things it might mean. It might mean he’s willing to scrap the ACA, though I doubt that. It might mean he thinks expanding Medicaid to cover children is a positive thing. It might mean he’s prepared to renounce the ACA and the process that led to it. That isn’t likely because that’d mean standing up to Nancy Pelosi and getting kneecapped by a ruthless autocrat.
The ACA is the worst piece of legislation of our generation by a country mile. It was crafted in Nancy Pelosi’s office and Harry Reid’s office. The amount of consultation with people from the Cleveland Clinic and other innovation leaders within the industry was miniscule.
The fact that Mr. Graves won’t put his policy perscriptions on his website is akin to him telling us to just trust him, that we don’t need to know the specific things he’d champion.
Graves’ interview with MPP’s Bill Prendergast doesn’t paint a picture of moderation:
GRAVES: So I’m not going to sit back when she says that there isn’t such a thing as global warming. I’m going to say “Uh, Ms. Bachmann have you had an opportunity to fly over the North Pole? I haven’t but I’ve seen pictures, and global warming is factual.” Ninety-nine point nine per cent of the scientists agree to that, and I guess I go with the science.
Perhaps Mr. Graves should read this article and the list of scientists that once believed in AGW who’ve switched. This isn’t exactly a fresh off the printer study, either. It was published in 2007.
Since then, scandals have riddled the scientific community. The IPCC report has been challenged as being more of a political document than scientific document. At this point global warming is a theory, not fact. The fact that Mr. Graves thinks this is settled science speaks volumes about the intellectual rigor that he’s used in reaching his opinion.
I won’t vote for a person who doesn’t have the confidence in his policies to publish them on his website because it tells me he’s hiding something. Fair or unfair, that’s life.
Jeff Anderson started picking a fight on mining with his Eighth District DFL opponents. Now he’s ripping Rick Nolan for not being serious about mining:
In a hastily called news conference to counter Nolan’s, Anderson said he would support the Republican-sponsored House legislation and that he supports incumbent Republican Rep. Chip Cravaack’s amendment that would extend the new rules to projects already in the works, such as the proposed PolyMet copper mine near Hoyt Lakes.
Anderson blasted the Nolan plan as wasteful federal spending that would create no immediate mining jobs, and he challenged Nolan to support immediate regulation reduction, such as changing the state’s longstanding sulfate standard for wild rice lakes and rivers. That standard currently is being upheld by the Environmental Protection Agency under the federal Clean Water Act. Sulfate often is a byproduct of mining. Anderson said the standard threatens several taconite and copper mining projects if not changed.
“While I support the idea of doing more research into evolving mining technologies, the people seeking jobs in this district cannot feed their families with studies,” Anderson said. “They need jobs. They need good, livable-wages jobs.”
Nolan’s plan isn’t a serious proposal. It’s a PR stunt and a pork project straight from Jim Oberstar’s playbook. Anderson is right. Nolan’s worship of mother earth prevents him from making a serious proposal on mining.
As for Tarryl, her response wasn’t a response:
In a statement, Tarryl Clark, the third candidate in the DFL race, said she has been consistent in her support for reduced mining industry regulations. Clark noted she is supported by the United Steelworkers of America on the Range.
“With the right advocate in Congress, we can build on our past successes and lead the world in 21st-century mining that creates good-paying jobs while remaining responsible stewards of our environment,” Clark said. “I have always supported an efficient and effective permitting process which guarantees protections for our workers, our water and our air. In Congress, I will continue to work on improving this process.”
In other words, Tarryl wouldn’t say whether she’s support Chip’s amendment to minimize wait time for mining investors. Considering her position with the BlueGreen Coalition, it isn’t likely she’s a friend of the mining industry.
Rick Nolan and Tarryl Clark aren’t friends of the mining industry. They’re political opportunists trying their best to hide their hostility towards the mining industry with pork projects and spin about the mining industry.
A spokesman for Cravaack’s campaign, Ben Golnik, said “Chip Cravaack will continue to be laser-focused on working to improve the economy and bring more jobs back to the 8th Congressional District. In his short time in Congress, Chip has worked to reduce excessive and duplicative red tape blocking economic development and job growth.”
Chip’s taken a proactive approach to getting the mining industry up and running. He’s pushed for streamlined permitting, which has occasionally taken over 10 years to get approved. Chip’s worked hard to get PolyMet’s EIS approved by the EPA.
Chip Cravaack is the miners’ best friend. That isn’t just my opinion. It’s the story told by Chip’s actions.
Three weeks ago, I wrote that Amy Klobuchar’s daughter attended school in Virginia. Naturally, the major Minnesota media didn’t think about looking into the matter.
That’s quite different than the treatment Chip Cravaack has received since moving his family to New Hampshire. This article isn’t from the Minnesota media but it’s similar to the ones written by Minnesota media outlets, with this exception:
Last summer the congressman and his wife, Traci, bought a house at 18 Sheffield St. in Windham, paying $645,000, assessor Rex Norman said, after reviewing town records.
The four-bedroom home, with two and a half baths and a three-car garage, was built in 2002 and is assessed at $578,100. Norman described it as a “mid-range priced home” for Windham.
Cravaack is keeping a low profile in town.
“I haven’t run into him at Shaw’s or anywhere,” Selectmen’s Chairman Bruce Breton said. “I heard months ago that somebody from Minnesota moved to Sheffield Street, but I didn’t know it was a congressman.”
It’s interesting that a congressman that’s supposedly living in New Hampshire hasn’t been seen since moving his family there almost a year ago.
What’s more interesting is that Minnesota Amy hasn’t done a townhall in her time in office. Compare that with the fact that Chip’s done more than 2 dozen townhall meetings in his large district since getting sworn into Congress 15 months ago.
Cravaack hasn’t been in for a haircut yet at Windham Barbershop in the Cobbetts Pond plaza.
“I don’t think so,” barber Tristin Herdt said. She had not heard about the Minnesota congressman living in Windham. “I’m sure it will come up,” she said. “We’re a barbershop.”
It’s telling that a congressman that’s supposedly living in New Hampshire hasn’t been seen in a small town of approximately 15,000 people.
What’s more telling is that Chip’s worked hard to provide solutions to the biggest issues facing his constituents. He’s worked tirelessly to get the EIS put together so that the PolyMet mining project will become reality. That’s more than what Sen. Klobuchar has done for making the project a reality. That’s more than what Sen. Klobuchar and former Rep. Oberstar did to make PolyMet a reality.
It’s ironic that Chip’s done more to earn his re-election in 2 short years than Sen. Klobuchar’s done to earn her re-election in 6 long, unproductive years in DC. In his brief time in Congress, Chip’s done more to improve the lives of his constituents than Sen. Klobuchar’s done for her constituents.
During last night’s Senate debate on Photo ID, DFL Sen. Patricia Torres Ray highlighted the DFL’s most often-used argument, that there isn’t a problem with voter fraud. Here’s how Sen. Torres-Ray highlighted it:
DFLers contended there’s no need for photo IDs. Before the debate, Sen. Patricia Torres Ray, DFL-Minneapolis, said the proponents produced no evidence of voter impersonation in Minnesota.
Only 113 of the 2.9 million Minnesotans who voted in 2008 were convicted of voter fraud, Torres Ray said, and the vast majority of them were felons with valid driver’s licenses who mistakenly assumed their voting rights had been restored when they were released on parole or probation.
First, voter impersonation isn’t the only type of voter fraud that Photo ID will stop. The DFL’s myth that Photo ID will only stop voter impersonation voter fraud must be shot down ASAP because it’s a bald-faced lie.
At a March 8 House hearing, election judge Rick Smithson testified to how voter fraud was committed in the small town where he’s a veteran election judge:
RICK SMITHSON: We had an incident. I live in a small town of about 900 people and we had — I’m not sure. I called one of the city council members to ask him. It was between 10 and 13 people came into the same day registration table. And by the way, I election judge all the time so I’ve seen situations like this, not necessarily exactly like this but very similar ones.
On this particular night, between 10 and 13 people showed up for same day registration. They all claimed 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.
Is Sen. Torres-Ray going to argue that these 13 people weren’t committing voter fraud? Is Sen. Torres-Ray willing to argue that 13 people listing a small town laundromat as their address isn’t highly suspicious? Is the DFL willing to fight with Sen. Torres-Ray in saying that this wasn’t voter fraud?
If they’re willing to do that, what does that say about Sen. Torres-Ray’s and the DFL’s willingness to either lie or willfully ignore the truth? If they’re willing to do those things, doesn’t that demolish their credibility on this issue? Doesn’t their dishonesty discredit their arguments?
Let’s dip into what impersonation is.
It isn’t just when Frank Wilson of Lake Wobegon goes into the town of Garage Logic and asks for a ballot as Joe Soucheray. Voter impersonation happens when a group of people from Wisconsin comes into Minnesota and asks to do same day registration, especially if the people insist that the town’s laundromat is their home address.
A great way to detect voter impersonation is when the PVCs for same day registrants are sent to the laundromat, then are returned as undeliverable or the peeople don’t live at that address.
When the Cuyahoga River caught fire, people didn’t need a detector to know that the river was polluted. It was self-evident. When the MnDNR says that a river, lake, stream or pond is polluted, it doesn’t wait until the lake, river, stream or pond catches fire.
The MnDNR usually finds out that the water is polluted because they’ve taken water samples, then had the samples analyzed. These tests test for any number of elements, from mercury to phosphorous.
The point is that it’s impossible to detect subtle types of pollution without testing it.
As straightforward as that is, the DFL is insisting that it knows that voter fraud isn’t happening without testing for voter fraud. That’s like me arguing my favorite fishing lake isn’t polluted because it doesn’t look polluted.
When Sen. Patricia Torres-Ray says that voter fraud isn’t happening because there’s few convictions of voter fraud, it’s the same as me arguing that my favorite fishing lake is pollution-free because nobody’s fished it besides me in years.
Finally, We The People don’t work for the Patricia Torres-Rays and her special interest allies. The Patricia Torres-Rays of the world work for We The People.
It’s time that We The People told PTR and her special interest allies that we insist on election integrity that’s verified through Photo ID, not the honor system.
In this Washington Times interview, Newt makes the case for why his policies are the right policies for America. It also offers him the opportunity to explain why he doesn’t fear other candidates:
Here’s Newt’s opening reply in the interview:
NEWT: There’s an Establishment over here and they get to change musical chairs but they don’t really change policies.
This is quintessential Newt. It’s Newt at his finest. The first step is defining the situation/problem. In this instance, the problem is that the DC Establishments of both parties are so entrenched that they refuse to change.
After that opening, Newt gets rolling. This portion of the interview is especially compelling:
NEWT: Look at my tax policy, which the WSJ said was the most aggressive job-creating policy of any candidate and look at Romney’s, which the WSJ said was so timid, it could be Obama’s. It’s that big a difference.
Look at my position on the EPA and then look at the other guys. Then look at my position on Social Security, which is real change, leading young people to have a real chance to have a real savings account. And then look at the other guys.
Over there, you have timidity and the old order. And over here, Reagan, Goldwater, a genuine move towards applying conservative principles without regard to the Establishment’s dictates.This is the defining difference in the race.
This past Friday, Mitt repeatedly told the CPAC audience that he’s conservative, that he’s really one of them, without explaining what his conservative credentials are. That’s because he doesn’t have a list of conservative credentials.
In the first 44 seconds of this interview, Newt laid out conservative policy initiative after conservative policy initiative. Most importantly, Newt’s plan includes a timetable for implementing these conservative policy initiatives.
In his CPAC speech that won rave reviews, Newt talked about how, if he’s elected president, he’d meet with the new Congress and ask them to stay in session and repeal Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley so that he could sign those repeals hours after his inauguration.
Newt then said he’d sign a series of Executive orders so that “by the time Obama’s plane touches down in Chicago, we will have eliminated 40% of the things he’s done.”
The difference between Newt and Mitt is that we get a detailed action plan with Newt; we get a lengthy list of rosy-sounding, focus group-tested platitudes with Mitt.
Personally, I’ll take the substantive plan over focus group-tested platitudes without hesitation.
It’s worth noting that Mitt’s criticisms of Newt don’t focus on the policies he’s advocating for. Mitt’s criticisms focus on Newt’s odd behavior in the past.
Why won’t Mitt man up and tell us why his policies on taxes, the EPA, Social Security and health care are better than Newt’s? Is it because he knows he’d get his butt kicked in that matchup?
The reality is that Newt’s the only candidate on the debate stage with gravitas. Mitt doesn’t have it. He’s the plastic, molded candidate who was injected with nice sounding platitudes.
This country needs solutions, not platitudes. Newt has the solutions, Mitt has the platitudes and the clueless DC GOP Establishment. Isn’t this really an easy decision?