Keystone Madness

Keystone Madness

"Now, reacting to a congressional deadline to decide, Obama rejected the proposal. But he also suggested that a new application with a modified Nebraska route -- already being negotiated -- might be approved, after the election. So the sop tossed to the environmentalists could be temporary. The cynicism is breathtaking."

Indeed! - SP

13 Politically Incorrect Gun Rules

guns | crime | shooting | The Daily Caller

At the top of the list:

1. Guns have only two enemies rust and politicians.

Dear Andrew Sullivan: Why Focus On Obama's Dumbest Critics? - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic

Dear Andrew Sullivan: Why Focus On Obama's Dumbest Critics? - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic

"I submit that had Palin or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice or Jeb Bush or John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney proposed doing even half of those things in 2008, you'd have declared them unfit for the presidency and expressed alarm at the prospect of America doubling down on the excesses of the post-September 11 era. You'd have championed an alternative candidate who avowed that America doesn't have to choose between our values and our safety.

Yet President Obama has done all of the aforementioned things. "

Death by Wealth Tax | Hoover Institution

Death by Wealth Tax | Hoover Institution

One only has to do a cursory study of the French Revolution to understand the truth of this article. If taken to the extremes that the current Administration and others in Congress (i.e most Democrats) would like to take them, not only will this country CONTINUE to suffer but it will become worse than any of us can imagine! - Sp

"Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S." (And, of Late, the Dumbest) @ AMERICAN DIGEST

"Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S." (And, of Late, the Dumbest) @ AMERICAN DIGEST

"These people are deeply stupefied and confused. Ideology will do that to you. They seem to think, to actually believe, that this coming election is about only voting if you can vote for a candidate you like. Let me disabuse these kids of this silly notion right away. The election of 2012 ain't a conservative popularity contest. It's a war to, first, last, and always, destroy any possibility of a second term for Barack Hussain Obama.

This is not a "Vote-For" election. This is a "Vote-Against" election. This is not a "Sit-It-Out-And-Pout" election. This is a "Get-Obama-Out" election. That is what it is about and that is all it is about."

If you call yourself a Conservative you need to read and and UNDERSTAND this!! Pure ideology will NOT win this election! We ALL need to unite behind the candidate that is finally chosen and defeat the greatest threat to this country in our generation! - SP

Keystone Blue-Collar Blues

Larry Kudlow at RealClearPolitics:


The payroll-tax-cut debate is not really about the payroll tax, which is a very weak-kneed economic stimulant and a lackluster job creator because of its temporary nature. Without permanent incentives at lower tax rates, these rebates don't do anything for growth and jobs.

Instead, the key to understanding the payroll-tax debate is to grasp President Barack Obama's leftist vision of taxing successful earners (the millionaire surtax) and his obsession with clean energy at the expense of fossil fuels. These are ideological positions. They support the Obama vision of class warfare and his attachment to radical environmentalism.

And the key to understanding this state of affairs is the disposition of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, which Republicans cleverly threw into the payroll-tax debate as the only real job creator.

By siding with the radical greenies and standing against the Keystone pipeline, Obama has turned his back on the most traditional voting bloc in the Democratic Party: blue-collar, hardhat workers.

Manufacturing workers. Construction workers. Truckers. Pipefitters. Plumbers. The Keystone opposition coming out of the White House is completely alienating all these people, the folks who work with their hands. And it's these workers who have been decimated in the recession far more than any other group in the economy.

David Barnett, the head of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, told me on CNBC that unemployment is currently running at 20 percent to 25 percent in this blue-collar sector. He has repeatedly lobbied the White House to allow the Keystone pipeline to go through, and he notes high environmental standards in the work his men do. And yet even now, three years after the initial Keystone reviews began, the issue is still not resolved.

How can you have a jobs bill without putting blue-collar workers back to work? Answer: stubborn ideological insistence.

The Teamsters support the Keystone. So does the AFL-CIO. So do the machinists. And along with the plumbers and pipefitters, so does the Laborers' International Union of North America.

And we're not just talking about the 20,000 jobs that would accrue directly from the pipeline, but the secondary and tertiary jobs from a long supply chain that total well over 100,000.

As of this writing, the White House may dump the millionaire surtax. But that's not much of a concession, since it never would have passed anyway. Republicans are adamant. It's a nonstarter in the House, and probably the Senate, too. Meanwhile, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell told me the Keystone pipeline is the key to the payroll-tax-cut deal.

Both practically and symbolically, Obama's obsessive stance against the pipeline rips a huge split in the Democratic Party, and in the country as a whole. His manic support of clean energy -- just think Solyndra -- has blocked out any rational evaluation of the ongoing importance of oil and natural gas -- including the oil-and-gas-shale fracking revolution that has become a huge jobs creator in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and elsewhere.

The Obama administration recently shut down the Utica shale field in Ohio because of an Agriculture Department objection. Two hundred thousand jobs are at stake. A field in Wyoming may be shut down. New York state desperately needs jobs and growth, but is wavering because of EPA actions elsewhere.
And with the Keystone ruling delay now extending for another year, the Keystone folks might give the whole project up in the U.S., in favor of a Pacific Ocean pipeline in Canada that will sell oil to the Chinese.
While the U.S. dithers, the Canadians are taking action. As a shot across the unbalanced environmental bow, the Canadian government is opting out of the Kyoto global-warming treaty. As energy analyst Daniel Yergin writes, while the unstable Persian Gulf countries represent 16 percent of U.S. oil imports, Canada represents 25 percent.

Yergin also writes that by the beginning of the next decade, Canadian oil sands could double production to 3 million barrels per day. That means an even higher share of U.S. imports coming from our friendly neighbor and largest trading partner.

So in addition to being an economic-stability issue, this becomes an energy-independence issue and even a national-security issue.

Obama's decisions on the pipeline and other new energy breakthroughs are inimical to U.S. interests. They also are hostile to Democratic Party hardhats who may desert the president in droves come next November.

On top of all that, what may be America's leading new source of job creation will be stifled.

The Hot Race Nobody Is Talking About

A battle for the soul of the Republican party?

Andrew Stiles at NRO:

The Iowa caucuses are still weeks away, but those in search of a hotly contested GOP election need look no farther than the Capitol this Tuesday, when Senate Republicans will select a new vice chairman of the GOP conference.

What may seem like a relatively mundane affair (vice chairman of the conference is the lowest-ranking leadership position), some are billing it as a monumental struggle for the very soul of the Republican party. RedState founder Erick Erickson, for example, is touting the race, which pits Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) against Sen. Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), as “the most important fight for conservatives in America.”

Erickson and other conservative activists are aggressively backing the freshman Johnson over Blunt, who is also a first-term senator, but whose 14 years serving in the House of Representatives (including a brief stint in leadership) classify him, in their eyes, as a member of “the GOP establishment.”

“I like both senators tremendously,” Erickson writes, “but for conservatives, Ron Johnson is a no-brainer here. Senator Blunt’s thinking is the same thinking that has plagued Senate Republicans for a decade now — the same old ideas and same old strategies.” Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica, concurs. Johnson, he argues, is “a champion for the principles of conservatives,” whereas Blunt is a “creature of the establishment.”

Johnson supporters are quick to point out the senator’s conservative credentials via the Heritage Action for America congressional scorecard: He enjoys a 91 percent rating, compared with Blunt’s 64 percent. (Heritage Action is a notoriously tough grader; Paul Ryan rates just 78 percent.)

That said, conservative support for Johnson appears to derive less from his voting record than from his status as a true political outsider — in other words, his relative lack of political experience. Johnson, who has never held political office until now, touted his extensive private-sector experience — 31 years as an accountant and plastics manufacturer — to great effect in his campaign to oust incumbent senator Russ Feingold (D., Wis.) in 2010. In doing so, he was able to win broad support within the GOP, from both “the establishment” (the National Republican Senatorial Committee) and the Tea Party, in year that saw a fair amount of infighting between the two factions.

“I thought it was important for people from the private sector, citizen legislators, to bring that valuable perspective to Congress,” Johnson tells National Review Online. “I’ve exported products. I’ve actually created jobs. And now that I’m here, I think I can bring that valuable perspective to the leadership in the Senate.”

The case for Blunt, meanwhile, emphasizes his congressional experience. During his time in the House, which included brief tenures as majority whip and majority leader, Blunt developed close working relationships with Reps. John Boehner (R., Ohio) and Eric Cantor (R., Va.). Blunt’s supporters argue that his ties to the current House leadership would be a valuable asset when it comes to the relationship between Republican leaders in the upper and lower chambers, particularly in the (likely) event that the GOP wins control of the Senate in 2012. “Since when did experience become a negative attribute?” asks one Senate aide. “You know, it actually tends to come in handy around here.”

Blunt’s supporters also note that he would bring his own unique perspective to the Senate leadership. If elected, he would be the first chairman of the Values Action Team — a congressional coalition focusing primarily on social issues — chosen for a leadership post.

“Each one has a pretty good argument to make,” observes another Republican aide. “I’d say it’s still up in the air at this point.” Indeed, most observers predict a close vote. However, another critical factor driving support for Johnson among conservatives is the perception that “the establishment” has rigged the race in Blunt’s favor. Some suspect that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) is actively whipping the vote against Johnson, a charge the leader’s office strongly denies.

The vice chairman’s slot initially became available in September when the current conference chairman, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), announced his intention to step down from the No. 3 leadership position. Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.), who holds the No. 4 spot as policy chairman, is running unopposed to replace him. Current vice chairman Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) is expected to succeed Thune.

Johnson announced his intention to run for vice chairman just hours after Alexander’s announcement. Blunt, meanwhile, quietly began seeking support for a run of his own, but made his candidacy public only last week, after Alexander set a date for the election.

Erickson cried foul, writing: “[The election] was going to happen in January. But conservatives started gaining momentum. Naturally, Mitch McConnell had to go try to pull the rug out from under conservatives.” Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), a tea-party favorite who is backing Johnson, said he was “kind of surprised” to learn that the election was being moved up.

One Senate source contends that the decision to move the date up was made at McConnell’s bidding in a deliberate effort to help Blunt, while others insist that the vote was never officially scheduled for January and that it was Alexander who made the call. The purpose of holding the election now, they say, is to give the new leadership team sufficient time to be able to hit the ground running when Congress returns after the holiday recess.

In addition to DeMint’s, Johnson has received endorsements from Sens. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), and Bob Corker (R. Tenn.), as well as from fellow freshman senators Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.), Mike Lee (R., Utah), and Rand Paul (R., Ky.). The endorsements from Rubio, Lee, and Paul are noteworthy because those freshman lawmakers embody the tea-party/establishment rift that characterized a number of high-profile races in 2010: Each of them defeated an establishment-backed candidate to win the Republican nomination. “There’s a broad spectrum in the conference between any party,” Johnson says. “I may be on one side, others may be on the other side.”

Having only recently announced his bid, Blunt remains mum with respect to the endorsements he has received thus far. His supporters expect a close race and note that the outcomes of such elections, which are decided by secret ballot at the weekly GOP lunch meetings, are often difficult to predict, as some senators have a habit of pledging support to multiple candidates in the run-up to a vote. Johnson acknowledges the same. “I like my chances,” he says, “but it could go either way.”

The two senators agree that, however the election turns out, 2012 will be a critical year for Senate Republicans — and for the future of the country. “America is facing a critical moment, when we’re going to decide who we’re going to be as a nation,” Blunt said in a statement announcing his bid.

“We don’t have much time,” Johnson says. “It’s absolutely crucial that the 2012 election is actually a mandate election, and we’re not just running to get over the finish line.”

Whoever gets the nod on Tuesday will certainly have his work cut out for him.

Obama on jobs: Words, not action

Steve Huntley at The Chicago Sun-Times:

President Barack Obama rolled out his 2012 campaign theme the other day, a populist message with the tired mantra of Republicans as the party of the wealthy while casting himself as the defender of the middle class. “This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class,” he declared. The problem is that, as usual, his record doesn’t match his rhetoric.

A make-or-break moment for the middle class “and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class” would cry out for immediate decisive action to protect that cherished status and give a boost to all those knocking on the door of the American dream.

But that’s not the case when it comes to good-paying energy jobs.

For example, Obama decided to put off for a year construction of the Keystone pipeline to deliver oil from Canada to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast. That $7 billion shovel-ready construction project would generate 20,000 jobs. It’s make-or-break time but, hey, job-seekers can wait a year for a chance at an oil pipeline paycheck.

The administration is keeping the lid on oil and gas exploration since the BP oil rig accident, not only preventing new job growth but threatening more job loss. A study of oil permitting by Greater New Orleans Inc. shows that 52 percent of drilling plans in the Gulf of Mexico have been approved this year, down from the historic rate of 73.4 percent. The regulatory maze facing fossil fuels pushed the average approval time to 118 days, nearly twice the historic average of 61 days.

Saying the administration has lifted the BP-inspired moratorium “only in name,” Gregory Rusovich, chairman of the Business Council of Greater New Orleans, declared, “The governmental work stoppage has gone on long enough. Now is the time for action to prevent further job loss.”

“Now is the time for action” echoes the sentiment of Obama’s speech. But his political desire to score points with environmentalists and to promote unprofitable green energy schemes trumps this “make-or-break moment.”

The president uses his rhetoric to push his latest “jobs” plan, a one-year extension of a temporary payroll tax cut to be funded by a tax hike on the rich. There’s little evidence this temporary measure has helped the economy much.

A make-or-break moment calls for fundamental reform — like the economic blueprint presented by Obama’s deficit reduction commission a year ago. It got the cold shoulder from Obama. Its concept of raising more revenues for the government through a simpler tax code with lower rates and few or no deductions runs afoul of Obama’s populist rabble rousing over raising taxes for the rich.

Closing loopholes would also deliver a blow to crony capitalism in Washington and the influence of lobbyists. It would deprive Washington of avenues to pick winners and losers in the economy, a reduction in political clout that Obama and other big-government advocates cannot abide.

Obama mocked common-sense Republican assertions that the economy needs breathing room from red tape. Yet the huge expansion of government rule-making on his watch — the Dodd-Frank finance bill — failed to stop the finagling of Jon Corzine, the former Democratic New Jersey governor for whom Obama campaigned. Corzine’s financial machinations plunged MF Global into the eighth-largest bankruptcy in U.S. history with $1.2 billion in customer money missing.

A “make-or-break moment” requires more than words; it demands commitment and action.