September 23-25, 2012
Sep 23 08:23 Graves' mistake Sep 24 01:23 DFL pundits attack Romney's 47% comment, Westover sits idly by Sep 24 00:51 Vikings upset 49ers Sep 24 03:54 Will fossilized media report this? Sep 24 13:08 Ritchie's lies hit despicable low Sep 25 03:36 Polling follies Sep 25 09:08 The lockout stops here Sep 25 10:25 Mined in America highlights need for cheap energy
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
DFL pundits attack Romney's 47% comment, Westover sits idly by
It isn't surprising that DFL political pundits like Buck Humphrey and Mike Hatch played into the 'Mitt Romney's out of touch' meme started by Mary Lahammer. They don't want to talk about President Obama's disastrous economic policies . They definitely don't want to talk about President Obama's decision to leave U.S. embassies vulnerable on 9/11 .
Mitt Romney made a foolish statement at that fundraiser. If the media wants to focus on Mitt's statement, then it's only fair that they admit, in writing, that they aren't interested in President Obama's decisions that got people killed or President Obama's policies that have an unstable region of the world on the edge of regionwide conflict.
The media have allowed the Democrats to not say a thing about their performance in office, which should be the determining factor in this election.
This is proof that the broadcast and fossilized media don't care about informing the people about important things that are happening. This part of the media is focused on getting President Obama re-elected and nothing else.
If they have to ignore this administration's reckless decisions, that's what they'll do without hesitation. If it's required to hide the truth about economic conditions, they'll willingly sweep that information under the proverbial rug.
Still, despite the Democrats' best efforts to hide this administration's policies and decisions, this race is tight. Despite President Obama's carpetbombing advertising campaign that attempted to paint Mitt Romney as the Devil's right hand man, this race is still even.
The first thing from Humphrey's mouth was a comment about Mitt Romney's tax return. Specifically, he talked about Mitt's tax returns being proof that Mitt's out of touch with average people.
It's incredible that a person can say that about a man who contributed 30% of his income to various charities. Those aren't the actions of a man who doesn't care about people. Those are the actions of a person who cares deeply about people going through difficult times.
If anything it's proof that Mitt's an exceptionally compassionate man, someone who doesn't hesitate in putting his money where other people's needs are. If that's proof of anything, it's proof that he does with his money what the Democrats do with everyone else's money but their own.
The only thing more disgusting than having Humphrey make that statement is the fact that Craig Westover didn't call him on it. Instead, he focused his statement on the fact that Mitt isn't a movement conservative.
There's no question that Mitt isn't a movement conservative. Big deal.
If Mr. Westover thinks it isn't important to highlight the media's malpractice, then it's time for him to not be a media personality for the GOP anymore.
But I digress.
Almanac's roundtable didn't discuss the fact that President Obama's policies shoved people out of the middle class into the classification of the working poor.
Apparently, that wasn't important.
They didn't discuss President Obama's reckless decision to leave an embassy without the security they needed on the anniversary of 9/11.
Apparently, they didn't think that that was important either.
Intellectually honest people will quickly agree that it's far more important to make smart national security decisions than making articulate statements about 47%. It's time for a new project. It's time to jettison ill-intentioned DFL pundits like Mike Hatch and Buck Humphrey. It's time to jettison fossilized media personalities like Mary Lahammer, too.
If they won't look at issues from both political persuasions' perspective, they're useless. At this point, it's clear they don't care about informing the people about the important things happening in our neighborhoods or half the way around the world.
It's time conservatives and independents created an antidote for the irresponsible fossilized media. Blogs and talk radio are great but they don't have the reach that the fossilized media has.
Tags: Media Bias , Buck Humphrey , Mike Hatch , Mary Lahammer , Political Hacks , President Obama , Benghazi , al-Qa'ida , Terrorist Attacks , Recession , Unemployment , National Security , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Tax Returns , Charity , 47 Percent , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, September 24, 2012 1:23 AM
No comments.
Graves' mistake
The mistake that Jim Graves is making in his campaign against Michele Bachmann is that he isn't saying what he's for . His first TV ad was biographical. Graves' second TV ad featured a bunch of former Verso employees who said that Michele Bachmann hadn't personally reached out to them.
It's easy to empathize with their situation, though they're less sympathetic when they're used in a political attack ad. (See Joe Soptic about that.) It isn't easy identifying with a guy who thinks people in the Sixth District will be persuaded to switching their votes by playing on people's heartstrings.
A real candidate would offer specific solutions to the district's, and the nation's, biggest problems. It's been 4 months since he won the DFL endorsement but he still hasn't offered solutions to things like lowering people's electric bills, gas prices or grocery prices.
He hasn't proposed policies that would create jobs. The only thing he's done is said he would've voted for President Obama's stimulus bill. That's the bill that created trillion dollar deficits but didn't create many jobs.
Michele Bachmann has proposed repealing the ACA, the biggest job-killing bill in U.S. history. Thanks to the ACA, small businesses that would otherwise expand are choosing not to.
Graves, a hotel and restaurant developer from St. Cloud, said in a statement that Bachmann's ad is using "falsehoods to distract voters from her record of reckless spending in Congress and her failure to represent the people of her district.
The first point in Michele's ad attacks Graves for supporting President Obama's "failed stimulus bill." Tom Hauser said that Graves supported the bill. He then said that it's opinion that the bill is a failure. The next point in Michele's ad was that Graves supported TARP. Again, Hauser said that that's accurate.
The third point in Michele's ad said that Graves supports the trillion dollar tax increase in the ACA. Hauser said that Graves supports many parts of the ACA but that he didn't support other parts. When I talked with him at a Townhall Tuesday event, he said that the ACA was based on free market capitalist principles.
That means it's likely Graves would've voted for final passage of the ACA. Whether he liked the tax increases initially or not, he would've voted for tens of billions of dollars of middle class tax increases. That part is indisputable.
In other words, everything Michele Bachmann said in the ad is accurate. That's why KSTP gave it a B- in accuracy. That's one of the best grades you'll see this year.
"You found time to participate in 15 debates during your run for President. During that time you missed 320 votes over 40 days in which you were campaigning outside of Minnesota," Graves wrote in a letter to Bachmann on Thursday, Sept. 20. "You found a way to make yourself available for voters in Iowa and South Carolina and New Hampshire. And yet when it comes to your own constituents, the people who actually pay your salary, you refuse to give them the same time and attention."
Every weekend, Michele Bachmann meets with her constituents in the district. She's told them where she stands on all of the important issues of the day, whether it's energy policy, taxes, spending, regulatory reform or repealing the ACA.
Michele's constituents don't know Mr. Graves' positions on the important issues. It's quite possible they don't care. I haven't seen any proof that her base of support has weakened since 2010, when she won by 13 points.
If Graves wants people to know about him, he can open his wallet buy the advertising he needs to introduce himself to the Sixth District. Candidates that want inordinate amounts of debates are usually trailing candidates who need a dramatic moment to upset the incumbent. (Think Jim Oberstar at the DECC .)
In terms of funding, Mr. Graves is a top-tier candidate. In terms of being a good fit for the district or being sharp on the issues, Mr. Graves isn't a top-tier candidate.
Tags: Jim Graves , Advertising , Stimulus , ACA , TARP , DFL , Michele Bachmann , Taxes , Energy , Regulations , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, September 23, 2012 8:23 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 23-Sep-12 12:19 PM
Gary:
The problem for Graves is that the solutions he needs to propose like keep tax rates the same or lower them, repeal Obamacare, get the EPA and other government agencies out of the way are Michelle's issues in a district that believes those things.
That's why since Michelle has been running in 2006 they have in the end said she is a bad lady which we know she isn't.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Vikings upset 49ers
This afternoon's upset of the Super Bowl-bound 49ers gave Vikings fans some things to cheer. The final score of 24-13 was a pretty accurate score for the game. This wasn't that tight of a game. I didn't think the 49ers were that impressive of a team today.
Their offensive line just didn't get the job done. The offense in general didn't get things figured out. The vaunted 49ers defense looked off-balance and ineffective, too.
Vikings fans shouldn't think of this as proof that this year's team is a .500 team. It was a fun game but they're still an awfully young team that's bound to have more downs than ups this season.
Still, Vikings learned 3 things today that has Rick Spielman smiling. First, it's time to write Christian Ponder's name in at QB in ink for the next decade. Three games into the season, Ponder's hitting 70.5% of his passes. He still hasn't thrown an INT, which is huge.
Second, the reason he's had such a strong season thus far is because Matt Kalil is the real deal. I watched a ton of tape on this guy after they drafted him last spring. It was clear that he had the tools to be dominant. I didn't think he'd be this good this quick. The 49ers have a pretty good pass rush.
Thanks to Kalil neutralizing each team's top passrusher, other linemen are getting more help with their opponent. Today, the telling stat is that the 49ers didn't record a sack. Kalil is the biggest factor for that. It's time to write Kalil's name in at LT in ink for the next decade.
Third, it's apparent that Ponder and TE Kyle Rudolph has a pretty good chemistry. Part of that is because Ponder's playing so well. Part of that is because Rudolph is turning into a beast at TE. Rudolph's second TD of the day was special. He caught it with a defender draped all over him on a ball Ponder shouldn't have thrown.
Percy Harvin continues to amaze with his production, versatility and toughness. He's the most dominant little receiver in the NFL by far.
Posted Monday, September 24, 2012 12:51 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 24-Sep-12 09:43 AM
Gary:
I'll add a fourth. It's easy to win when you don't make dumb penalties! This team could easily be 3-0 instead of 2-1 if they didn't committ double digit penalties in the Indy game.
Of course I believe that was a trademark that Bud Grant expected which is why his teams performed so good over the years.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Will fossilized media report this?
Forgive me for being more than a little skeptical of the media's willingness to report important information in a timely fashion. That's why I'm skeptical they'll air this information:
The part of this transcript I italicized is the part that can't be bypassed:
'There was this private narrative you see in the intelligence community where they separate what happened in Libya from this YouTube clip and then you have this public narrative that you have from this administration. And I got a hold of this Homeland Security Assessment. It talks about the scope of the demonstrations in the first week after 9-11 and what's interesting to me is that this intelligence document makes no mention of the YouTube clip . So again, that's sort of the private narrative but the public narrative from this administration has been that the clip has really prompted the assault not only in Libya but elsewhere in the Middle East.'
First, from this point forward, I won't publish the fossilized media's criticisms of Mitt Romney's misstatements. Next, I'll only publish information that's important to the American people for deciding who the leader of the free world will be for the next 4 years.
If it isn't important, it won't be published on LFR. People looking for gossip column junk can look elsewhere. LFR will be committed to talking about how awful the economy is and how widespread the violence is in North Africa and Southwest Asia.
LFR is committed to telling the American people about this administration's deceitful messaging on the Benghazi scandal. The fact that the security agencies didn't mention the anti-Islamic video is significant. That meant this administration's communications were blatantly dishonest for almost 2 weeks.
It's one thing for the fossilized media to ignore this administration's spin on an embarrassing incident. It's quite another for the fossilized media to ignore this administration's dishonest communications about a terrorist attack that led to the assassination of a U.S. ambassador.
What's almost as disgusting is that this administration's apologizing for the video throughout the Muslim world created uprisings in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Sudan and Yemen. They've inflamed the Muslim world to the point where it's reaching a tipping point.
Prior to last week's apology tour, the Middle East was relatively calm. After its apology tour, the Middle East, North Africa and Southwest Asia are ablaze with anti-American protests. From Cairo to Sana'a to Pakistan, Muslims don't appear to like President Obama or the US like he'd predicted.
President Obama's incompetence got 4 men needlessly killed on 9/11. President Obama's naivete led him to think that his personality was enough to make the Muslim world love the United States.
Clearly, he was wrong on both counts. Clearly, we can't afford 4 more years of President Obama's economic policies or foreign policy adventures. It's time for him to go.
Tags: President Obama , Media Bias , National Security , Benghazi , Intel , Terrorist Attacks , Hillary Clinton , Susan Rice , Jay Carney , Anti-American Uprisings , Pakistan , Sudan , Egypt , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Monday, September 24, 2012 3:54 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 24-Sep-12 10:06 AM
Fox IS fossilized media.
Fox IS gossip column junk.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 24-Sep-12 10:06 PM
Eric:
Do you really believe that the mob in Libya showed up on 9-11 and not some other day just by chance?
Do you really believe that the mob in Libya that showed up said I'm going to protest a video which came out in July so I should bring my rocket launcher, hand gernades, etc?
If you really believed that happened I have a bridge in New York to sell you along with some land in Florida that have some gators on it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Ritchie's lies hit despicable low
Mark Ritchie's willingness to do anything to prevent the proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment from becoming the governing authority on elections is breathtaking. This video shows what tactics Mr. Ritchie will use to defeat the proposed Photo ID amendment:
Here's the transcript of Ms. Farrell's statement:
I am Barbara Farrell, the president of the Minnesota chapter of American Gold Star Mothers, Inc. I received a letter from Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. The letter he sent me came from his office using state resources asking me to stand against the voter ID amendment and to also have my group stand against it.
American Gold Star Mothers, Inc., as a group does not take political positions. Therefore, our group cannot stand one way or the other on the issue but as a mother of a military person who died while on active duty, I am outraged by the letter because in it, Mark Ritchie says that the new Voter amendment, if passed, would take away the military vote, make it more difficult for our military personnel overseas to vote when that is not the case.
I am also outraged that he would use state resources to campaign against an issue that, as Secretary of State, he should be neutral on.
Mr. Ritchie is lying when he says that the proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment would stop military voting. He knows he's lying because the UOCAVA , aka the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, controls elections for military personnel serving overseas. Since this is a federal issue, UOCAVA is constitutional from a Tenth Amendment standpoint. That means nothing a state does, whether through statutes or through constitutional amendments, affects absentee balloting for military personnel serving overseas.
What's worse is that Ritchie made this campaign appeal using official Secretary of State stationary, something that's expressly forbidden :
'There are a lot of subtleties about the line separating official function from campaigns,' Nobles said on Monday. 'But this one was not subtle. It was an official document, and a reference to a running mate has no place in it.'
Whether it's Mike Hatch using official OAG stationary to talk about his runningmate or it's Mark Ritchie using official SOS stationery to defeat the proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment, the same rules apply. The principle is exquisitely simple. Supplies bought with the taxpayers' money can only be used for the taxpayers' business.
Campaigns aren't the taxpayers' business.
It's time for Mr. Ritchie to get impeached . He's committed to not enforcing this proposed constitutional amendment like he's been committed to not fulfilling his responsibilities mandated by the HAVA of 2002.
Tags: Mark Ritchie , Secretary of State , Mike Hatch , Attorney General , Corrupt Conduct In Office , Office Supplies , Campaigns , DFL , Investigation , Gold Star Mothers Inc. , Barbara Farrell , UOCAVA , Photo ID , Absentee Ballots , Military , Election 2012
Posted Monday, September 24, 2012 1:08 PM
No comments.
Polling follies
This weekend, the Strib published its monthly 'prop up the DFL memo' otherwise known as the Minnesota Poll. I won't go into detail on it because Mitch did a great job with it . I wouldn't add a thing to what Mitch wrote. I'll just say Mitch's stuff is must reading.
It's been an interesting day in terms of polling elsewhere, which is where this post is heading. This article offers insight into why the media's prediction that this race is essentially over is wrong:
Two percentage points separate President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney in a state poll conducted for the Tribune-Review, even though the campaigns largely are ignoring Pennsylvania and concentrating on other battlegrounds.
Obama polled 47 percent to Romney's 45 percent among likely Pennsylvania voters, with 6 percent of voters undecided and 44 days until Election Day, according to the survey by Susquehanna Polling & Research. The survey of 800 voters, conducted Sept. 18-20, has a margin of error of 3.46 percentage points.
The Lady Logician points out that this poll was taken before the Pennsylvania media started writing extensively about the EPA's war on coal. That's a point worth noting. This article explains why their poll looks different than other polls:
Our vote model for gauging the number of interviews conducted with voters of different demographic groups (things like party affiliation, racial background and age range, etc.) is a blend of turnout models from both the 2008 and 2004 presidential elections, but leans more towards 2004 VTO and is predicated on the belief that turnout this November will not be anywhere near '08 levels when 5.9 million votes were cast.
First, our ratio of interviews conducted with Republicans and Democrats in our recent polls (49D - 43R) gives Democrats a 6-point advantage based on the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans in actual registration. However, this ratio is slightly more Republican based on both national and state polling showing that Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats this year given high intensity among Republicans who strongly disapprove of the President's job performance. Nonetheless, this +6 Democratic advantage is only one point less Democrat than the 7-point advantage these same exit polls gave Democrats in the 2008 presidential election. Besides, simply conducting more surveys with Democratic voters (as some have suggested) doesn't necessarily translate into more votes for President Obama when you consider that Mitt Romney is winning Democratic-leaning counties in Western Pennsylvania by ten or more percentage points. Nonetheless, it is entirely appropriate to sample Republicans one or two points higher than in 2008 if you believe as we do that voter turnout this November will have little resemblance to the last presidential election.
Second, our ratio of younger to older voters reflects turnout that is likely to be slightly higher with older voters given the lack of enthusiasm from younger voters. In our surveys, 18-44 yr. olds make up 30% of all interviews and voters 45 years of age and older represent the remaining seventy percent. For instance, according to 2008 exit polls voter turnout among 18-29 year olds peaked at 18%, but national and state polling proves interest among younger voters down sharply this year due to higher unemployment with younger voters and college graduates in particular. So conducting approximately ten percent of surveys with 18-29 year olds is a reflection of this lower anticipated turnout among these less-enthusiastic voters. Besides, the fact that Obama backers have suggested that over sampling older voters skews results in favor of Mitt Romney is a striking revelation in a state like Pennsylvania known for having the 5th largest population of senior citizens in the country.
Third, recent polls showing a double-digit lead for Obama are not believable, and are probably using the 2008 voter turnout as the basis of their survey model. It is simply unrealistic to think Obama can or will win the Keystone State by the same double-digit margin he won by four years ago when you consider that most state and national polls continue to show most voters unhappy with the direction of the country after two straight years of unemployment at 8% or higher. This is why our statewide polls conducted every month since the primaries shows the President failing to hit fifty percent in most key measurements like favorable name ID, job approval and his ballot score. Plus, polling we have conducted in dozens of state senate and house races on behalf of incumbent legislators and other candidates, PACs and other special interest groups shows Obama's support down an average of seven percent when compared with his vote margins in these same districts four years ago. We estimate this 7-point drop off could mean up to 434,000 fewer votes cast for Obama this November, leaving a margin of less than 200,000 votes between the candidates. Based on this, perhaps the Phil' Inquirer poll showing Obama winning by a bigger margin than he won by four years ago is the real outlier.
Simply put, many of these media polls are junk to start with. The Minnesota Poll is famous for getting things badly wrong. Its history is filled with failure. Unfortunately, the Minnesota Poll has plenty of company. For the most part, I discount media polls. In fact, the only media poll I trust is the KSTP/SurveyUSA poll because they're stunningly accurate.
Here's something for the liberals who visit LFR to chew on: the Fox News Poll is junk. They've been commissioning polls for 5+ years and they've yet to be accurate. This year is no different. Saying that President Obama leads in Florida, Virginia and Ohio by 7 points, 7 points and 5 points respectively is pure foolishness.
The last article I read about Virginia said that Republicans have a significant advantage in the enthusiasm gap. People that think President Obama can lose the enthusiasm gap factor and lose on the individual issues and still be leading are wishing, not thinking.
This isn't 2008 anymore. It isn't 2010 either but it's significantly closer to 2010 than 2008.
At the end of the proverbial day, I think most pundits are overthinking this. Bill Kristol wrote that Mitt needs to be more substantive, something I agree with but for a different reason.
I think most voters know the U.S. can't survive 4 more years of President Obama. I think Mitt's stump speech should be more substantive because it'll help him win with a bigger margin of victory. That, in turn, will bring more GOP senators with him.
Tags: Polling , Enthusiasm Gap , Registrations , President Obama , Virginia , Pennsylvania , GOTV , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:36 AM
No comments.
The lockout stops here
Prior to this weekend, the NFL's 'replacement' refs were merely an embarrassment to the NFL and Roger Goodell. This weekend, they cost the Green Bay Packers and the New England Patriots victories.
I won't call these refs names. I'll simply say that they're terrible and they've got to go. This week. By tomorrow. Anything less is shameful for a sports league whose teams are essentially guaranteed to make money simply by existing.
If Roger Godell wants to be embarrassed when the Packers and Patriots don't make the playoffs because replacement referees blew calls that high school refs would've gotten right 99% of the time, he's staring at a golden opportunity right now.
If, however, he wants to be the best commissioner of the best pro sports league in sports history, which is slipping away, he'd better straighten this mess out. ASAP.
Anything less would severely tarnish the NFL's reputation.
Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:08 AM
Comment 1 by MplsSteve at 25-Sep-12 02:09 PM
Gary-
I've been a hard-core Packers fan my whole life. But I went to bed last night about 10:30PM. I was tired and thought "I'll read about the outcome tomorrow morning".
I'm glad I didn't stay up. I would have been so irritated that I probably wouldn't have fallen asleep til 1AM.
I'm no fan of the Vikings. Not a bit. But if I had witnessed the same screw-over happening to the Vikings that happened to the Packers, I'd still have been irritated.
On a side note, Jason Lewis (yesterday) had some interesting commentary regarding the replacement refs and the overall culture of greed that exists in pro sports. Perhaps you heard it.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Sep-12 02:23 PM
I didn't hear Jason's show yesterday. Sorry.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 25-Sep-12 04:49 PM
Gary:
Keep in mind the refs in week tried to help SF get back into the game and last week the Ravens were cost a victory when a ref was so eager to rule in error that Michael Vick had fumbled instead of intentionally grounded a pass that Phili after the replay which corrected the fumble error had left Philli on the 1 or 2 yard line for Vick to run in the game winning touchdown instead of trying to pass it in beyond the ten yard line.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Patrick at 25-Sep-12 09:49 PM
Packer fan here. No more NFL for me until the real referees come back. Take a look at teams these refs actually officiate and you will see why they have no business in the NFL.
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/d2
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/d3
Comment 4 by Patrick at 25-Sep-12 09:51 PM
Packer fan here. No more NFL for me until the real referees come back. Take a look at teams these refs actually officiate and you will see why they have no business in the NFL.
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/d2
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/d3
Canceled my NFL channel on Charter today. Saves me $120 a year.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 26-Sep-12 09:24 AM
Gee, you mean people who clearly are not qualified for their jobs should be "let go"? Who do you think you are, Clint Eastwood?
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 26-Sep-12 04:51 PM
Since Obama is not happy with the refs I can bet there is a proposal for Obama to get the refs back. He probably thinks MI, IL, and MN are in the bag so he is going to try to get the WI vote by defending the Packers.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by Nick at 27-Sep-12 12:38 AM
Real Refs to be back this weekend!
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 27-Sep-12 05:14 AM
See what happens when I speak out? Nobody messes with Gary.
Mined in America highlights need for cheap energy
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.
Tags: President Obama , EPA , War On Coal , Virginia , Pennsylvania , Ohio , Regulations , Manufacturing , Democrats , Management , Unions , Activism , Bipartisanship , Energy , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:25 AM
No comments.
