February 20-22, 2012
Feb 20 09:49 Obama energy policy: Starvation; Gingrich energy policy: Land of Plenty Feb 20 13:28 Hinderaker vs. Johnson? A thoughtful debate vs. the right message Feb 21 02:06 Sen. Bakk's Vikings stadium proposal doesn't add up Feb 21 09:25 Analysis straight from the land of unicorns & pixie dust Feb 22 05:37 Good maps for the GOP, terrible day for the Special Redistricting Panel
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Obama energy policy: Starvation; Gingrich energy policy: Land of Plenty
This administration has done its best to gut the fossil fuel industry since the day it took office. That's led to high gas prices, high home heating bills, high grocery bills and a stalling economy. In that context, this video is must viewing:
H/T Gateway Pundit
John Hofmeister is the former CEO of Shell Oil. Now he's the founder of Citizens for Affordable Energy. This weekend, Hofmeister took this administration to the proverbial woodshed:
But John Hofmeister, former CEO of Shell Oil and founder of Citizens for Affordable Energy, told Fox News that oil production today is only 7 million barrels per day when it used to be 10 million per day.
Hofmeister warned that the global economy is in 'the crosshairs' of a precarious situation in which China is growing its demand for oil each year by millions of barrels per day and turmoil in the Middle East is creating 'some of the most unpredictable, volatile, geopolitical situations' in the world.
Global oil demand, meanwhile, is expected to increase by another 1.5 percent to 89.25 million barrels a day in 2012, according to the Energy Information Administration.
'The failure of the United States of America, the world's largest consumer, to adopt government policies to enable domestic production to increase and meet these conditions has been nil, nada, nothing, and that is unfortunate for American consumers,' Hofmeister told Fox News.
'We know where the oil is but the government has to allow the companies to get the oil,' he said, charging the Obama administration with being 'anti-drilling,' as demonstrated by the moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico following the BP spill in 2010.
The average price of gas this month so far is $3.49 a gallon, up 21 cents since the beginning of the year, and $1.60 more per gallon than when Obama took office in January 2009.
These are the key statistics to take from Hofmeister's criticism of this administration: Domestic oil production is down 30%. Gas prices have doubled since this administration took control. New pipelines are forbidden. Drilling in the most desolate places in America is prohibited.
It's almost as if that was this administration's goal:
Here's the first thing that President Obama said in the video:
OBAMA: The problem is can you get the American people to say that this is really important and force their representatives to do the right thing?
What is the right thing to do, in President Obama's mind on energy? He states it rather eloquently in this statement:
OBAMA: Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
In his own words, President Obama thinks that "doing the right thing" is having "electricity prices necessarily skyrocket." The effect of higher electrical prices is felt throughout the economy. It's felt in government budgets. It's felt in people's homes. It's felt every time people stop at the grocery store or gas station.
It's an unwelcome intruder in every American's life. Unfortunately, that's this administration's goal.
By contrast, Newt Gingrich is to Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. It's based on the simple concept that we should dramatically expand oil exploration ASAP, which means scrapping this administration's policies the minute that Newt's sworn into office.
There are two reasons why I mention Newt in this context. The first reason is because I've been unabashedly pro-Newt because he's great on policies. The second reason why I'm mentioning Newt is because he's the only GOP presidential candidate who's got a serious, detailed plan for lowering energy prices.
To the pretenders, it's time they learned that they can't beat something with platitudes and empty words. Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney don't have detailed plans on increasing domestic energy production.
With America at an energy crossroads, it's time that Americans reject this administration's policies. It's time that they reject the platitudes of the less-than-serious candidates.
It's time they picked Newt.
Tags: President Obama , Cap And Trade , Electricity , Skyrockets , Green Energy , Solyndra , Democrats , Newt Gingrich , Fossil Fuels , Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less , ANWR , Mitt Romney , Rick Santorum , Ron Paul , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 9:49 AM
No comments.
Hinderaker vs. Johnson? A thoughtful debate vs. the right message
John Hinderaker has been a stalwart supporter of Mitt Romney's for quite some time. That's why it isn't surprising that John wrote this post this weekend.
The gist of John's post, if I read it right, is that Rick Santorum won't get the time from the national media to talk about economic policy. That's probably true but, honestly, that's trivial.
If Mitt's the nominee, he'll be bombarded with questions about his flip-flopping and his support of O'Romneycare. If Newt's the nominee, he'll be bombarded with questions about his ethics nonscandal and his marriages.
The point is, whether it's Mitt, Newt or Santorum, The Barrage is coming.
Scott Johnson, John's partner at Powerline, wrote this post this morning in response to John's post:
Mitt is an inspirational candidate. The problem is that what he inspires is intense apathy among a substantial number of conservatives and Republicans. They (we) resist him. Santorum is the recycled non-Romney who now benefits from this resistance. He may be the last non-Romney standing. Among the previous beneficiaries of the resistance to Romney are Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Santorum, Gingrich and now Santorum again. The logic of a Romney candidacy has been insufficient so far to wear down the resistance of a large share of conservatives and Republicans.
I understand the resistance, but I am lukewarm on the non-Romneys as well. If I had to choose a candidate among them, I would choose Romney. I think he is the least bad of the lot.
The resistance to Romney among a large part of the base of the Republican Party, however, suggests to me that Romney himself would be less than a stellar candidate against Obama. He's got problems that the non-Romneys have successfully exploited. Romney's defense of Romneycare in the debates has been a recurrent thumb in the eye to the not inconsiderable number of Republicans for whom repeal of Obamacare is a priority along with with fiscal and economic issues.
I actually agree with John and Scott on their central themes. I part ways with them, however, in a very important respect.
Mitt inspires intense apathy, making him unelectable. You can't win if people don't commit to getting out the vote, writing checks or voting. That's reality.
Rick Santorum is too easily caught up in life/religious issues. I appreciate his commitment to life issues. I applaud him for living out what he says in public. Simply put, he isn't equipped to turn off that subject. That makes him unelectable.
People know that Newt comes with a ton of baggage. They know that the media will hit him hard on his personal life. The key difference between Newt, Mitt and Santorum is that he's fully equipped to disarm the media while presenting his appealing solutions to America.
Of the three serious candidates left, Newt's the only one who gives TEA Party activists and other conservative something to fight for. When surging gas prices became the hot topic, Newt started campaigning on his Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less theme. He talked about increasing domestic oil production. He started talking abou dropping the price of gas to $2.50 a gallon .
That's appealing and it'll cut through the media's BS like a hot knife through butter.
When this administration announced that it was imposing contraception mandates that "would require most religious institutions to pay for coverage they find morally objectionable", Newt said correctly that this was the administration's attempt to ignore the First Amendment protections for religious institutions.
Newt didn't talk about contraception. Newt didn't get caught up in the life issue. Newt simply said that the Obama administration didn't respect the Bill of Rights' protections of our basic liberties from government.
Again, this statement of principle got strong support across political and religious lines. It cut through the media's filter. It cut through the media's established storylines.
During the debates, it's easy to picture Newt criticizing President Obama for his willingness to ignore our Constitution's Bill of Rights.
The bottom line is this: people will be excited to vote for the man who's committed to cutting gas prices to $2.50 a gallon by making a robust domestic energy production program a high priority.
The key to doing this is by letting the Agenda Media and the political establishment in both parties prattle on about 'realistic' goals. We The People will focus on the things that make America great, that truly restore prosperity for all Americans, not just for President Obama's cronies. We The People will focus on slashing entitlement spending by creating so many new jobs that HR departments will be flooded with work hiring new workers for high paying jobs.
Newt is the guy with the plan. Newt's the guy with the vision to make America great again. Newt's the guy who'll change the status quo in DC. In the end, Newt's the only candidate who'll balance the budget and start paying off our debt.
We don't need timid candidates. We don't need candidates that get bogged down in the minutiae. We simply need Newt to help build the America we love.
Tags: Blogs , Mitt Romney , Enthusiasm Gap , Apathy , Establishment , Rick Santorum , Life , Contraception , Mandates , Newt Gingrich , Bakken Oil Formation , Bill of Rights , Prosperity , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 1:28 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 21-Feb-12 08:56 AM
"The key difference between Newt, Mitt and Santorum is that he's fully equipped to disarm the media..."
Just saying it don't make it so. Newt's negatives are through the ceiling, as they have been for years. He can say whatever he wants. He simply has too much baggage.
Newt's in it for Newt. Always has been, always will be. If we're going to avoid Romney and have a realistic chance to beat Zero, Santorum is the only remaining option.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Feb-12 09:08 AM
You're right Bob. Newt's the only GOP presidential candidate with a serious domestic energy proposal. Newt's the only GOP presidential candidate with a detailed plan for regulatory reform. Newt's the only GOP presidential candidate with a serious proposal for tax reform.
Knowing those things, why would I think that Newt gives a shit about America?
Perhaps it's time to start selling Newt's conservative accomplishments instead of highlighting his shortcomings.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 21-Feb-12 02:27 PM
Gary:
I now have to disagree with three things you have said.
One, I don't think you can get away with saying that Newt is brilliant with the media. After all he almost sunk his candidacy (and you denied it angrily a few times before you conceded the point) that he blew the answer to the Ryan budget plan. Since I considered that to be a softball question it shows he can be just as bad with the media as the others.
Two, didn't Ronald Reagan run as part of his agenda on social issues. So I guess you didn't vote for Reagan in 1980 or 1984.
Three, the candidates have serious plans (yes even Ron Paul) on how to turn around the country. so quit pretending that the other three haven't put out plans. Instead why don't you try to highlight where Newt is different and better instead of throwing out insults especially to the two people who are beating Newt for the nomination right now.
Walter hanson
Minneapolis, MN
P.S. I had to go to my work computer to post this!
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Feb-12 04:54 AM
First, I don't recall defending Newt on his Paul Ryan statements other than saying that they were taken out of context. Second, as a matter of fact, I screwed up & voted for Carter in 1980. So shoot me. Third, none of the candidates have the extensive, transformative plans that Newt has submitted. I've read Mitt's 59-point, 160-page plan. It's more cheap shots & send it to the states.' Santorum's plan has some bold elements to it but it's got some boilerplate parts to it, too.
Finally, just because people are beating Newt in the polls doesn't mean they're smarter or better suited for the job. They aren't. Deal with it. If Mitt gets elected, which he won't, what will we get? Milquetoast, timidity & a better grade of lousy than President Obama. WOW. For the trouble we're in, that isn't what we're looking for.
Good job America.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 22-Feb-12 10:51 AM
Gary:
In 1995 I went and paid for a speech where Newt spoke. I have bought his books. I will like to say hey it's a no brain decision to vote for Newt.
Yet you have the problem with the marriages.
Yet you have the problem with that he sat down and did the commercial with Nancy Pelosi on global warming. Rick has recently gotten into trouble with the media because he had the nerve to question the global warming nonsense of Obama. Newt can't press that issue because he sat on the couch with Nancy.
Yet he butchered the Ryan budget plan question. It was him not the NBC person who muttered the words "social engineering" when all he had to do was say that the Ryan plan was like the plan I helped excute which led to four balanced budgets in the 1990's. (by the way don't you remember that post we exchanged about five or more posts each where I talked about the Ryan plan question being butchered before you conceded the point)
Mitt might not be as bold as Newt, but I hate to say he has better chance to get elected than Newt because he doesn't have the negatives that Newt has. Rick is a brilliant guy and doesn't carry the handicaps that Newt or Mitt has on health care or global warming.
The goal is to defeat Obama and wasn't it some national poll recently that when they polled Obama versus Mitt, Rick, and Newt that Newt did the worse of the three. Obama might not be as smart as Newt as far as you're concerned, but he figured out how to get elected and carry out his agenda. So just being smart isn't good enough Gary.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Sen. Bakk's Vikings stadium proposal doesn't add up
When I wrote this post last week, I questioned why Gov. Dayton and Sen. Bakk would propose to build a Vikings Stadium on the proceeds from charitable gaming. This post questions the wisdom of policymaking based on a volatile funding mechanism.
Last week, I cited a 2009 House Research study. That study said that after tax profits from charitable gambling topped $1,500,000,000 in 2000. That study showed that those profits had dropped to $1,032,000,000 in 2008.
With those statistics in mind, the question must be asked why Sen. Bakk, the former Senate Tax Committee chairman, would propose funding a billion dollar project on such a volatile, unreliable funding source.
Does he think that Ryan Winkler is going to sprinkle pixie dust on e-tabs and suddenly the revenues will explode? Sen. Bakk's proposal is as much guesswork as it is high finance.
What's worse, as I explained in last week's post, is that e-tabs will hurt charitable gambling, hurting everything from high school marching bands and hockey teams to local civic clubs.
This is, without a doubt, the worst stadium proposal ever put together. Therein lies the catch. It isn't even legislation.
If Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and others don't fix the problem with charitable gambling interests, there will be an intense lobbying effort to stop this type of proposal. It's the type of fight politicians don't need heading into an uncertain election cycle.
That's before considering the fact that the Minneapolis City Council has to approve of the proposal. That, by itself, will take time to get the votes together.
Factor in the Legislature taking its annual Easter break and you're down to a little less than a month to send the stadium bill through all of the committees with jurisdiction in both the House and Senate and you're pretty much looking at a doomed deal, at least without a special session.
In short, the likelihood of a stadium vote happening this year are remote. That's as it should be with a proposal with this flimsy of a funding mechanism.
Gov. Dayton and Sen. Bakk should be ashamed for proposing and approving the plan.
Tags: Vikings , Charities , Pull Tabs , Fundraisers , Bands , Mark Dayton , Tom Bakk , Legislature , Special Session
Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:06 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 21-Feb-12 08:51 AM
Where is Morrie Lanning's name in all this, Gary? Just curious. Bakk isn't in the majority and Lanning is supposedly the chief House stadium author.
You'd think the chief House architect for Wilfare would have something to say about this.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Feb-12 09:09 AM
Why would Lanning touch that proposal with a ten foot pole?
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 21-Feb-12 11:18 AM
Kind of my point. Bakk thinks he's a player here. Lanning is the guy who has to get the votes on the House side and he's already said the City of Minneapolis wanting Target Center included will cost votes.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 21-Feb-12 11:20 AM
Why would they propose it? Because in liberal la-la land, it's never about whether a proposal will actually work. It is about crafting something that sounds good and that, since the liberals have such good INTENTIONS, must work exactly as they say it will. It is repeal of the laws of nature, economics, and physics by legislative fiat.
Analysis straight from the land of unicorns & pixie dust
Hugh Hewitt is a decent interviewer. He's even a decent blogger. When it comes to Mitt Romney, he's ignorant as hell. This observation proves that:
I haven't asked anyone from Team Santorum or Team Paul, but think it through. The four remaining candidates have been out there shaking a millions hands, holding a thousand events and putting up with inane questions for a year, and they are going to stand aside for a group of "senior statesmen" to come up with a new candidate? Just absurd. Even if the extremely unlikely situation of a deadlock occurs, they'll get into a room and pull a name out of a hat before that happens, with winner agreeing to pick one of the other two to be the Veep.
But the far more likely sequence is that Romney will in fact be the nominee and a strong one , just as the Chicago gang fears.
Mitt might still win the nomination but the thought of Mitt being a strong nominee is foolish. Just yesterday, a more thoughtful man, Scott Johnson, made this observation :
Mitt is an inspirational candidate. The problem is that what [Mitt] inspires is intense apathy among a substantial number of conservatives and Republicans.
Mitt's chief trait is inspiring apathy. After that, Mitt's best trait is inspiring disgust. That's just reality. Two weeks ago, veteran GOP consultant Ed Rollins said in an interview that the other candidates hated Mitt by the time he dropped out of the race during his CPAC speech in 2008.
This time, Mitt's scorched earth campaigning, combined with his saturation bombing negative attacks on each of the other candidates make him one of the most despised political figures in American politics. Conservative activists are disgusted by Mitt almost as much as they're disgusted by President Obama.
This paragraph shows how out of touch Hewitt is with the base:
The Kos Kids and the UAW will try and bleed Romney by voting for Santorum in Michigan's "open" primary, but the GOP base knows much more than the MSM gives it credit for and knows the Chicago gang and its allies are trying to bleed their strongest general election nominee.
That paragraph should read "The GOP base knows much more than Hugh Hewitt gives them credit for. They know Mitt isn't one of them. They know he's the guy who drank the global warming Kool-Aid . Thanks to Mitt's behavior in Ohio , they know Mitt's the spineless candidate in the race."
A discussion of Mitt's greatest conservative accomplishments wouldn't last long. That discussion might not take a full paragraph.
When Mitt loses, whether it's now or in the general election, it'd be nice to get the conservative Hugh Hewitt back. The guy masquerading as Hewitt isn't a conservative. He's a Romneybot, willing to defend Mitt regardless of reality.
Tags: Hugh Hewitt , Talk Radio , Blogs , Mitt Romney , Liberal , Romneycare , CO2 Emissions , Regulations , GOTV , Apathy , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:25 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing, at 21-Feb-12 11:06 AM
No need to be so hard or Romney backers. There is still time for people who believe that candidate A is, or could have been, the best one to defeat obama in the fall AND advance conservative principles. Belief in either one of those premises does not mark any individual conservative as wrong. They may be proven incorrect, as events unfold, but they are entitled to their strongly held opinions until you, or reality, convinces them otherwise.
Good maps for the GOP, terrible day for the Special Redistricting Panel
Here in central Minnesota, Republicans had a decent day. King Banaian, aka Landslide Banaian, must be smiling after learning that Minden Township was added to his district. While Rep. Gottwalt's district lost a key city in Rockville, his district is still a solid GOP district.
As a result of those shifts, Sen. John Pederson must be smiling, too. He lost Rockville, a strong GOP city, but gained Minden Township, a strong GOP township.
Rep. Gottwalt's loss, Rockville, is Larry Hosch's loss, too. Rep. Hosch's red district just got substantially more red.
A new district was created east of St. Cloud that's strongly Republican. That district will include the cities of Rice, Foley, Becker, Clear Lake and Clearwater. The candidate there should consistently get 65% of the vote once they get to know it.
I'm told that the new district has two potentially strong candidates ready to run in the district, too.
While it was a good day for the GOP, it would've been better had the Special Redistricting Panel done what it said it was going to do in its rulings. Instead, the SRP chose to break up lots of smaller cities than was warranted.
On the House side, the legislative map split 39 cities. The SRP map split up 89 cities. That's bad news for those cities because they've now been handed an expensive bill for holding elections. Instead of being able to order uniform ballots for the entire city as much as possible, these cities will now have to order multiple versions of ballots for the multiple House districts.
In addition to that, they'll have to find new polling places so ballots from the multiple districts don't get mixed together.
Most disappointing, though, is the court's capriciousness in initially stating that they'd abide by the 2002 rulings, then ignoring those principles in putting this map together.
Thanks to their maps, future legislatures can't count on the courts' rulings as being a guide for future redistricting cycles. They've essentially destabilized the process. They've essentially put themselves in charge of the process, too.
They've now entered the political realm. That's dangerous. It's time for the legislature to write out the courts as much as possible. They should establish clear principles that must be followed consistently.
It's time to establish some stability in our redistricting process. The legislative and executive branches need it. Finally, it's time for the judicial branch to stay out redistricting as much as possible.
Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 5:37 AM
Comment 1 by Eric Austin at 22-Feb-12 11:04 AM
I don't know how you read any of that into the final map results. The maps look good. The least change possible principle is the best way to go.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 22-Feb-12 05:29 PM
It isn't difficult. The dramatic population shifts called for a dramatically different map.
