January 27, 2012
Jan 27 02:51 Chip Cravaack: Getting mining going again Jan 27 04:20 Newt News 1.27.12 Jan 27 04:57 Mark Levin exposes Mitt Romney's vile campaign tactics Jan 27 06:17 Bob Dole's recitation of Romney Chanting Points nearly perfect Jan 27 08:26 We've turned the corner? Jan 27 09:55 RNC, Mitt, won't know what hit them
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Chip Cravaack: Getting mining going again
Chip Cravaack has done alot to get mining going again. Chip's op-ed outlines all he's done to get things going again:
There is consensus among the PolyMet advisory panel I assembled: Mining without harm is the only way to build a sustainable, responsible minerals-exploration industry in northern Minnesota.
The PolyMet construction project will engage about 300 skilled construction workers and create 360 full-time jobs. A University of Minnesota Duluth study estimates more than 500 more ancillary jobs will be created in St. Louis County alone, generating an economic benefit of about $242 million, including products and services. Additionally, the project is expected to generate tens of millions of dollars annually in federal, state, and local taxes.
We are working hard to preserve our clean air and water on other projects as well. Recently, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Citizens Board unanimously approved Keetac's water-quality permits. Once all the other permits are secured, Keetac's capacity can increase by more than 50 percent to 9.6 million tons of iron ore pellets per year.
Likewise, we have moved a step closer to success with the $300 million expansion of the Keetac mine and processing plant in Keewatin. The Keetac expansion is expected to create 120 permanent jobs and 500 temporary construction jobs for Minnesota.
The approval of the PolyMet and Keetac operations would result in direct and much-needed boosts to our economy, yielding a domestic resource of raw materials. Ultimately, this would lower the United States' reliance on foreign sources and provide well-paying jobs for Minnesota workers at a time of high unemployment.
Chip's working hard to get Iron Rangers working again. Chip put the PolyMet panel together to take positive steps in the right direction towards making PolyMet a reality. As a result of his leadership, it's likely that PolyMet will become a reality this year.
Prior to Chip's taking a leadership initiative, PolyMet was stuck in a bureaucratic wasteland for the previous 5 years.
When the PolyMet and Keetac operations are finally up and running, those workers will have Chip to thank. Not only that but those operations will give Minnesota's economy a welcome shot in the arm.
Not only will PolyMet and Keetac create mining jobs but the operations will increase shipping operations in Duluth.
Minnesota's State Motto is L'etoile du Nord, which means Star of the North. During Gov. Perpich's administration, legislators half-kiddingly said that Perpich thought that it meant 'The money goes north.'
If Chip's leadership leads to a rejuvenated mining industry, L'etoile du Nord will mean 'Prosperity returns to the North.' That can't happen soon enough.
Tags: Mining , Keetac , Polymet , Chip Cravaack , Permitting , Regulations , Leadership , Prosperity , Iron Range , MNGOP
Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 2:51 AM
No comments.
Newt News 1.27.12
Levin takes Romney to woodshed, Part I Mark Levin
Levin takes Romney to woodshed, Part II Mark Levin, Jeffrey Lords
Michael Reagan, Rush take Romney to the woodshed Jim Meyers Newsmax
Romney, Gingrich joust over ties to Reagan AP
Gingrich under fire from Establishment media AP
Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 4:20 AM
No comments.
Mark Levin exposes Mitt Romney's vile campaign tactics
I didn't attempt to keep my allegiance to Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign a secret. I've disagreed a little, quietly, with Speaker Gingrich at times. I haven't sat idly by while Mitt Romney attacked Newt with bald-faced lies. Apparently, I'm not alone. When Mark Levin saw Mitt's attacks that Newt wasn't a true Reaganite conservative, Levin used his radio show to interview Jeffrey Lords, a fellow Reagan administration employee. Here's that interview:
To say that these gentlemen disagreed with Mitt is understatement. It's fair to say that they questioned Mitt's fidelity to conservative principles, both in the 1990's and today.
Levin used his opening monologue to go after Mitt, Jennifer Rubin and Little Annie Coulter. Here's that audio:
Mr. Levin pointed something out that had previously escaped me: that Mitt Romney used the same tactics against Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani in 2008 that he's using against Newt now.
There's a reason for that, which I've said here before. Mitt can't win by inspiring or persuading people. His only path to victory is by smearing his GOP opponents fiercely to the point that he's dragged them down to his level.
If, God forbid, Mitt wins the GOP nomination, he won't win in November. His Alinskyite tactics have turned off most of the GOP base. That's right. He'll have a difficult time getting votes from TEA Party activists and evangelical Christians to vote for him.
Mitt's scorched earth campaign tactics have destroyed any goodwill he might've built with these important parts of the base.
Finally, I'm going on record with this because it must be said: Mitt Romney is a despicable person. I can't trust him because of his disgusting, dishonest campaign tactics. I don't have a problem with a candidate playing hardball politics.
Mitt isn't using hardball tactics. He's deployed the entire arsenal of the politics of personal destruction against Newt. As a Christian, I can't sanction that. I'll do everything in my power to defeat Mitt, preferably during the primaries.
UPDATE: Welcome anti-Mitt readers. LFR is a anti-Mitt haven. If you appreciate my analysis and proactive suggestions on revitalizing the conservative movement, please consider dropping a few coins in my tip jar in the upper corner of the right sidebar.
PS- Come back often & tell all your friends.
Tags: Mitt Romney , Saul Alinsky , Smear Campaign , Fred Thompson , Rudy Giuliani , Mike Huckabee , Newt Gingrich , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 10:35 AM
Comment 1 by Gaile Harms at 27-Jan-12 05:06 AM
Thank you. I now have no reservations about supporting Newt. And no doubt about being against Romney.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Jan-12 05:21 AM
You're most welcome Gaile. As a born-again Christian myself, I can't sanction Mitt Romney's campaign tactics because they're utterly despicable.
I'll proudly vote for Newt Gingrich, though, because, in Mark Levin's own words, Newt's already done more for the conservative cause than all his opponents combined.
Take care & God bless your day, Gaile.
Comment 2 by Mrs. Charles Barnum at 27-Jan-12 09:58 AM
A big thank you! I lived through the Reagan years, too, as a regular citizen. That's when I changed my party to the GOP! I'm disgusted with what is going on now to the point I cannot and will not vote for Mittie. I'm not necessarily a Newt supporter. My choice was scratched right out of the gate and I could see the handwriting on the wall then. Rick Perry was trashed by the GOP and the GOP pundits without mercy and it was personal. I'm sick and tired of the elites telling me that Mittie 'looks' presidential. What the heck does that mean? I'm not voting on looks. I'm voting on substance. And, with Romney, scratch the surface and get more surface. No thanks.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Jan-12 10:26 AM
CB, You're most welcome. I'm hugely pro-Newt because, despite Newt's sitting on the couch with San Fran Nan, Newt's been a willing pro-Reaganite warrior.
I've said from the outset that Mitt isn't presidential material from an intellectual heft standpoint.
PS- Looks presidential means 'there's no there there'
Comment 3 by ARay at 27-Jan-12 09:18 PM
Romney's team in Florida is the Charlie"I embrace President Obama"Crist. Crist is so angry that the Tea Party ousted him in Florida that he's vicariously running against Newt for revenge. And who replaced Crist in Florida? Conservative Marco Rubio. Who helped his campaign to get him as the Republican on that ballot? Newt Gingrich
Bob Dole's recitation of Romney Chanting Points nearly perfect
Bob Dole's repetition of Mitt's Chanting Points was perfectly recited. Still, the "NRO staff" explains that Dole went nuclear on Newt . That's insulting. Dole isn't capable of matching up with Newt in terms of intellectual heft. Bob Dole is a true war hero. He deserves, and has received, this nation's gratitude for his service to this nation. That doesn't mean he gets to get away with this crap:
I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.
Gingrich served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999 and had trouble within his own party. By 1997 a number of House Republican members wanted to throw him out as Speaker. But he hung on until after the 1998 elections when Newt could read the writing on the wall. His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. In the end, he paid the fine with money from other sources.
Bob Dole was the Senate Majority Leader but it was Newt that was the man who engineered the first GOP majority in the House in 40 years. Newt Gingrich had a vision and a plan for accomplishing that. Newt doggedly persisted in pushing that plan.
Part of that plan was using C-SPAN to broadcast conservative ideas after the day's business had been completed. Night after night, Gingrich's ideas were broadcast to the nation. Bit by bit, a seemingly impossible mission turned into reality.
Bob Dole didn't lead that charge. Then-House Minority Leader Bob Michel didn't help make it happen. Phase II of the Reagan Revolution was made possible because of Newt Gingrich's persistence and Newt Gingrich's intellectual heft. Without Newt's vision and persistence, Republicans might still not have shattered that 'political glass ceiling.'
Newt Gingrich put together a plan that triggered the biggest GOP landslide in ages. To this day, it's only been topped once in the last century, that being in 2010.
During last night's radio program, Mark Levin commented on Dole's diatribe, saying that "of course Dole would speak out. He was part of the problem." Bob Dole isn't a visionary. That's why he wouldn't be my first choice to build a powerful election machine. I'm confident that he wouldn't make it into my top 50 for that job.
Still, we're supposed to take Tax Collector for the rich Bob Dole at his word that Newt would be a disaster for Republicans this election. I've had it with Mitt's attack puppies telling us Newt's an electoral disaster for Republicans.
Moderate McCain ran in 2008. How'd that turn out? Oh, that's right. Because of that lackluster campaign, we got Obamacare and the stimulus and the bailouts shoved down our throats.
It's time for the TEA Party to utterly abandon Mitt's moderates. It's time we shouted NO MORE!!! I've had it with these 'only moderates can win' types. If 2010, 1994 and 1984 should've taught us anything, it's that bold and intelligent works.
Tags: Bob Dole , Mitt Romney , RINOs , Chanting Points , Media , Media Bias , Politics of Personal Destruction , Newt Gingrich , Reagan Revolution , Special Orders , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 6:17 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 27-Jan-12 06:51 AM
The big question for everyone else but Republicans who have already made their choices is, is any of the four of them "Presidential." Of the four, Ron Paul has a history of not having his way and not getting nasty over it. The others seem too mercurial. Too quick to fly off the handle if not getting his way. Too quick to criticize one another vs. having articulated an economic attitude you might disagree with, but one that has been consistent and has not been influenced by lobbying money or return on investment hopes and possibilities. Romney's off-shore money is a problem he has not faced. His "I have created jobs" is a total joke. As Buffett has said, he's moved money around, as Buffett does, and it's different from other life work. Altering allocation of pools of wealth is not creating jobs, particularly when one aim may have been to shift work to the cheapest capable labor market. That is not creating US jobs, and none of the four have suggested everybody in the US should work as cheaply as the lowest common denominator labor pool.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 27-Jan-12 07:38 AM
The answer is YES. Newt's presidential & then some. He's the only person in either party with genuine gravitas.
The destructive idiot in the White House can't get past his failed ideology to do what's right for America. The Keystone XL Pipeline is proof of that.
Mitt isn't an honorable man. He's a dirty rotten scumbag, almost as disgusting as Obama's mentor.
Comment 3 by LadyLogician at 27-Jan-12 08:00 AM
I'm sorry guys - I don't base my decision on looks. I base my decisions for President on who has the best POLICIES! Today especially, this is not a beauty contest - it's an ideas contest.
Who is "Presidential"? Give me a freaking break.....
LL
Comment 4 by ARay at 27-Jan-12 09:30 PM
Bob Dole fought some rear guard actions for a long time, then the Senate majority was his. But it didn't sharpen and toughen him to become president. Heck, he ran so many times that finally it was his turn. There is no 'turn' any more. We need fighters with a fiery rhetoric to take on the MSM/Obama regime and conservative ideas and action plan.
We've turned the corner?
Here's the message that will bruise President Obama's administration this morning:
Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.
The increase in real GDP in 2011 primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, and nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from state and local government spending, private inventory investment, and federal government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.
Put in Main Streetspeak, President Obama's economic decisions have stunk. There's no way a recovery in its third year should be growing at that anemic of a rate.
The main reason why GDP in 2010 was 3% is because stimulus spending artificially raised GDP, not because this administration has implemented a pro-growth economic strategy.
This administration has been a total disaster. No amount of spin will change that.
UPDATE: Apparently, Sen. Schumer hasn't figured it out that the economy sucks:
Tags: GDP , Obamanomics , Obama Administration , Recovery , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 11:40 AM
No comments.
RNC, Mitt, won't know what hit them
During my trip around the Rightosphere this morning, 2 things are abundantly clear: 1) Mitt and the RNC don't see what's about to hit them from President Obama and 2) Mitt and the RNC don't see the seething anger building up against them from the activist base. Two posts highlight that second point brilliantly. Let's start with Erick Erickson's post first:
The fix is in for Romney, which just means when he is crushed by Barack Obama a lot of Republicans will have a lot of explaining to do. Newt may not be able to win. But Romney sure as hell can't beat Obama either if Newt can't win. The problem remains Gingrich supporters intrinsically know this to be so and are happy to die fighting. Romney's supporters are still deluding themselves.
While I don't agree that Newt doesn't have a chance, I certainly agree that Mitt's people are delusional.
Dan Riehl's post has a harder bite to it:
For Romney to attack every conservative from the Right, when he is so obviously and so far to the Left of them, demonstrates a complete lack of character and integrity. But slash and burn is all he has, as he has no core conservative principles and can't articulate them in an authentic manner. As much as I hate Obama's politics, as an individual, I have more respect for him today, than I do Mitt Romney. And I am far from alone. If the GOP doesn't realize what that will cost in soft support, or no support at all in the Fall, they are delusional.
With the advent of new media, too many people are seeing, talking and connecting today. The GOP in Washington is not the party of Reagan, it is a party on its way to the political wilderness for a decade or more without serious reform. The clearest sign of that is the support a Ron Paul pulls. It is 2 - 4 times what it should be and is a telling sign of just how many people have written, or are in the process of writing off the GOP establishment.
I agree with everything Dan said. The leadership at RNC HQ sucks. In fact, I'll add to Dan's thoughts with this:
1. When it comes to social media and the internet, Mitt's team, like the RNC, moves at the speed of government. You could see Mitt's surprise last night when, during the break, CNN checked on whose ad was running the disparaging remarks about Speaker Gingrich. In fact, if you watch the tape, you'll see Mitt deflate immediately after that.
2. It's been 28 years since Reagan won re-election and the RNC still hasn't figured it out that you can't win elections if the base isn't enthusiastically behind the nominee. It just won't happen. Each election cycle, the Establishment tells us that squishies like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney have a shot at winning.
Initially, I thought 'you'd think that they would've figured out that that isn't true, especially after last year's midterm romp.' Then it dawned on me: These Establishmentarians figured you can win with conservatives but that isn't what they want. They'd rather have 'compassionate conservatives' than true conservatives.
3. When has Mitt fought for anything? Has Mitt fought for anything? I haven't seen proof of it yet. In Massachusetts, Mitt certainly didn't fight to keep Planned Parenthood off the MassHealth payment policy advisory board.
4. We know that Newt's a fighter because he's fought his own president on tax increases. He fought for 16 years to create a GOP House majority. He insisted that we balance the budget ASAP.
5. This is the most important of all. Mitt's scorched earth campaign will kill him next fall when the TEA Party activists work to elect conservative congressmen, senators and state legislators but don't lift a finger to get Mitt elected. That's what happens when the nominee torches each of his opponents.
6. If you think that the TEA Party got riled up in August, 2009 through the midterms, you ain't seen nothing yet. After Mitt loses, there'll be a major housecleaning at the RNC. The worthless strategists that collect nice salaries but don't have 2 brain cells rubbing together will be dispatched.
Squishie enablers like NRO's editorial board, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Hugh Hewitt, Jennifer Rubin, S.E. Cupp and Ann Coulter will be political roadkill. Good riddance.
Don't say the activists didn't try warning you.
UPDATE: Welcome anti-Mitt readers. LFR is a anti-Mitt haven. If you appreciate my analysis and proactive suggestions on revitalizing the conservative movement, please consider dropping a few coins in my tip jar in the upper corner of the right sidebar.
PS- Come back often & tell all your friends.
Tags: RNC , Establishment , Mitt Romney , Bob Dole , John McCain , Social Media , Debates , Reince Preibus , RINOs , TEA Party , Activists , GOP , Elections
Posted Friday, January 27, 2012 10:34 AM
Comment 1 by Kate Thomsen Gremillion at 27-Jan-12 10:09 AM
This is exactly what I am seeing and feeling.
Comment 2 by Lorna Miller at 27-Jan-12 10:23 AM
O.M.G. (Obama Must Go), that sort of common sense analysis is the sort of stuff that gets me so excited I think I need to go take a cold shower. ;)
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Jan-12 10:30 AM
Lorna, Thanks for the compliment. I take pride in applying the brain cells that God gave me to lay the facts & logic out as clearly as possible.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 27-Jan-12 10:33 AM
I heard someone say that the problem with Newt is that he is undisciplined-- "shooting from the lip"-- and that Romney is TOO disciplined-- boldly attacking Gingrich of late but in all else insufficiently bold and conservative. This stage of the campaign, if not all stages, should be about distinct differences with the sitting Occupier-in-Chief. I'm afraid Newt's undisciplined sound-biting (talking about "trillions" to create a moonbase, though he didn't) and Romney's attacks on such things, may make BOTH of them unelectable.
Comment 4 by Katy at 27-Jan-12 10:35 AM
If the Republican establishment proves to 42% of Americans who are conservatives they are as treacherous as the Democrat Party by pushing Mitt Romney, liberal Progressive from Massachusetts against Obama, liberal Progressive from Chicago...both parties can go to hell!
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN 2012 SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR EVERYONE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM GOING OFF THE CLIFF... NOT ENSURING THAT IT DOES WITH 2 CANDIDATES WHO ARE BOTH PROGRESSIVE...ONLY DIFFERENCE IS HOW FAST EACH ONE WOULD SHOVE IT OFF THE CLIFF.
Mitt Romney has no moral center, no integrity and is nothing but a political opportunist who wants to ride in Air Force One, play golf and strut around like the cutest thing on earth just like Obama has done the past 4 years.
I would not place a vote for Mitt Romney if HELL FROZE OVER.
Comment 5 by 99YankeeSierra at 29-Jan-12 12:45 AM
Y'all keep forgetting a small, yet vital "swing" component needed for a GOP candidate to win POTUS: the so-called "Reagan Democrats."
Analysis of Presidential elections since 1980 shows they will vote against their best economic interests (pro hourly-wage worker Democratic platform) and for the GOP nominee (Reagan, Geo. W. Bush) when the GOP candidate distinguishes himself as a supporter of traditional "family values" regarding social issues (God's place in the body politic, abortion, adoption, euthanasia, guns, "gay marriage", etc.).
HOWEVER, when the GOP nominee is *perceived* to be less than solid on those issues, and appears to be no more "traditional" than the Democrat, the R.D.'S will vote for their checkbook, not their prayer book. 1992: Clinton vs Bush Sr.; 1996: Clinton vs Dole; 2008: Obama vs McCain.
R.D.'s are but one small minority of the overall USA electorate, but they have been & will be a major influence in deciding the Electoral College votes of key Rust Belt "swing" States.
Neither Romney nor Gingrich nor Paul can beat Obama in 2012. So be it.
