Best Twitter Yet!

Which version of Romney did Rubio endorse? 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0...

That says it all about Romney.

Off for a long weekend and will be back here on Monday.  Figured that Twitter post from last night was the perfect way to start the weekend.

Have a terrific weekend!

Mitt: I Won't Detail Plans, Because Then I'd Lose

If you care to read the whole interview, please go to the link below at New York Magazine.  Personally have no desire to have more than this snippet on my website about Romney and his plans because this one paragraph says it all.  What kind of a candidate is he that he expects people to vote for him not knowing his plans?  I like the sound of 'Because then I'd lose' which suits me just fine.  Romney is treating this like he would a company with a hostile takeover even when the majority of Republicans don't want him.  

The man never ceases to amaze me with abject stupidity.  Tell voters you have a plan when you become President but voters cannot see what it is.  We are supposed to believe a bigger flip flopper than Kerry that it would be good for the US?  Give me a break -- this man is not ready for prime time and never will be.  

Mitt: I Won't Detail Plans, Because Then I'd Lose
Posted: 03/26/2012 3:28 pm                                   

Mitt Romney has embraced a budget plan that would entail cutting federal programs other than defense and Social Security by more than half. It does beg the question of how he plans to carry out such a sweeping goal. In an interview with the Weekly Standard, Romney says he'd eliminate a bunch of departments. But he won’t say which ones. 

Read the whole story at New York Magazine

Romney is going to eliminate a bunch of departments but we are not allowed to know which ones?  Does he plan on ruling by executive orders as well.  Our complaints with Obama are that he is too secretive so along comes Romney and brags about a plan none of us can see.  Sticking with my Obama lite!

Breaking News in case you missed it:  Pres Bush 41 is going to endorse Romney tomorrow -- who would have thought one of the masterminds behind Romney from the first failed try for President would have endorsed him again.  Bush 41 is taking a legacy and trashing it with the tactics out of his people in this race to get Romney the nomination.  The question is WHY?

Magic Johnson-led group is picked as Dodgers' next owner

When we lived Yucaipa following a transfer of my husband to Norton AFB, we would go to Dodger games when the Reds were in town or if it was special event like helmet day -- we still have the Dodger helmets.  We were there for a long extra-inning game with the Pirates where they stopped selling beer at the end of the 7th inning.  Always wondered if it went one more inning if they would have opened the beer sales back up.  The guy next to us who was a regular said if you want to make sure you have beer for the rest of the game, go buy some before the end of the 7th.  My husband did just that but the game went on so long everyone ran out.  The 7th inning has to be about the biggest sale of beer of any inning in Dodger Stadium.

The Cincinnati Reds were our #1 team and was shocked to see so many Reds fans in attendance at their games with the Dodgers.  That was a great rivalry and as my son said last night -- Reds #1 and Dodgers #2 again.  Loved going to Chavez Ravine to Dodger Stadium.  There was so much history there and now some of those players are coaches and managers. You couldn't beat the Reds/Dodgers series rivalry for the National League when alignment made sense.  I can still see in my mind Johnny Bench coming up to home plate and hitting a home run and then the Reds went on to win the game.  We proudly left the stadium in our Reds gear and the remarks were great game, glad you could come.  I remember the absolute class of Dodger fans in those days.  Haven't been back in years but they loved their Dodgers as much as we loved our Reds.

From the comments on Channel 5 out of Los Angeles last night, the fans are excited.  As one guy said, Magic Johnson is a winner and they have great hope for the Dodgers to make a comeback.  

Baseball is such a great summertime activity to go to the ball park, have a hot dog, some popcorn, or peanuts -- Dodgers had the champion peanut throw for the concessions who would go up and down the aisle selling peanuts and tossing them to the person who bought them -- always right on the mark.  

We lived in the LA area when the Lakes/Celtics were the draw.  Watching Magic run up and down that court with Kareen, Wilkes, Worthy, and the 6th guy off the bench Cooper was AWESOME.  We watched the parade of the Lakers after winning their World Championship and there was Magic with that huge grin of his. Now Magic is a part owner in the LA Dodgers with that huge grin -- that group would have been my choice.

Magic Johnson-led group is picked as Dodgers' next owner 

The group, headed by the Lakers legend known for community involvement, agrees to pay $2 billion for the team. Frank McCourt keeps a small land take. 

By Bill Shaikin and David WhartonMarch 27, 2012, 10:45 p.m. 

A group led by Lakers legend Magic Johnson emerged Tuesday night as the new owners of the Dodgers, ending months of uncertainty for the storied but troubled baseball franchise. 

Johnson, who guided the Lakers to five NBA championships during the "Showtime" era of the 1980s, is a partner in the group along with longtime baseball executive Stan Kasten and movie executive Peter Guber. The controlling owner would be Mark Walter, chief executive officer of Guggenheim Partners, a Chicago-based financial services company. 

Walter and McCourt met privately in New York on Tuesday, coming to an agreement only hours after Major League Baseball owners approved three final bidders. 

The winning group paid $2 billion for the team -- a record for a sports franchise -- according to an announcement issued jointly with previous owner Frank McCourt. 

"I am thrilled to be part of the historic Dodger franchise," Johnson said in the statement, adding the new owners "intend to build on the fantastic foundation laid by Frank McCourt as we drive the Dodgers back to the front page of the sports section." 

After taking the team into bankruptcy last year, McCourt had sought to retain control of the parking lots surrounding the ballpark. It was announced he and "certain affiliates" of the new ownership will be "forming a joint venture, which will acquire the Chavez Ravine property for an additional $150 million." 

Johnson's group will control the parking lots for Dodgers games and work with McCourt on any future development. 

In the statement, McCourt said the sale "reflects both the strength and future potential of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and assures that the Dodgers will have new ownership with deep local roots, which bodes well for the Dodgers, its fans and the Los Angeles community." 

The announcement Tuesday ended three years of turmoil during which the team's performance on the field deteriorated and the front office struggled financially. 

McCourt chose Johnson's group over St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke and a partnership of hedge-fund billionaire Steven Cohen and biotech billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong. 

The Dodgers last won the World Series in 1988, their sixth championship in half a century of O'Malley family ownership. The Johnson group would become the Dodgers' third owner since the O'Malleys sold the team in 1998, following News Corp. and McCourt. 

The sale must be confirmed by the court in a hearing April 13. The transaction is set to close by April 30, the same day McCourt must pay his ex-wife $131 million in a divorce settlement.
If the deal closes as expected, the Dodgers would be owned by an entity called Guggenheim Baseball Partners. Kasten, former president of the Atlanta Braves and Washington Nationals, would run the team. 

"Stan Kasten is my man," Johnson told The Times in announcing his bid last December. "He's a winner. He's built two incredible organizations, and he's well-respected. That is what was important to me. I had to get with a winner, a guy who understands baseball inside and out."
The sales price was nearly three times the previous record price for a baseball franchise, $845 million for the Chicago Cubs in 2009. 

The bulk of the funding to buy the Dodgers came from Guggenheim. Walter is not expected to play a significant role in the day-to-day operation of the Dodgers. 

Guggenheim President Todd Boehly and Bobby Patton were also listed as partners. 

Johnson, who has built a reputation for community involvement since his playing days ended, would own a small stake in the Dodgers, as would Guber, who is co-owner of the NBA's Golden State Warriors. Johnson and Guber are partners in the Dayton Dragons, a minor league baseball team that has sold out 844 consecutive games, an ongoing record in U.S. professional sports. 

Johnson brought five championships to Los Angeles, marrying sports and entertainment as leader of the "Showtime" Lakers in the 1980s. The three-time NBA most valuable player was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2002, by which time he had launched a business empire that has included movie theaters, banks, restaurants and film production. 

Excerpt:  Read More at the LA Times

Magic is one person who took responsibility for his actions and made lemonade out of a bitter lemon years ago and went on to become an investor throughout Los Angles giving back to the people who given their support to him.  Magic has done so much for Los Angeles and now as he embarks on this new chapter, the Dodgers could not have a better leader out front for the team.  Magic is a winner at life and in everything he does.  Great day to be a Los Angeles Dodger fan.

Magic Johnson is perfect fit for Dodgers
Former Lakers great is the perfect guy to help reestablish bond between the fans and the franchise. 

By Bill PlaschkeMarch 27, 2012, 10:58 p.m. 

Just like that, the Dodgers are credible again, promising again, connected to their city again. 

Just like that, it's Magic. 

Go ahead, Los Angeles, dig out that dusty Dodgers cap and unwrinkle that Dodger Stadium seating chart and shout yourself blue again. Go ahead, it's safe now, after two years in hell your city's most enduring sports team has just been placed in the giant hands of its most enduring sports star. 

A group headed by Magic Johnson has just purchased the Dodgers from Frank McCourt for $2 billion, ending a prolonged nightmare with a soaring slam dunk. 

Mark Walter, chief executive of the $126-billion Guggenheim Partners financial company based in Chicago, will be the controlling owner of a group that will be led by Johnson and directed by longtime respected baseball executive Stan Kasten. 

McCourt sold the Dodgers to Johnson's group Tuesday just five hours after Major League Baseball approved three finalists for an auction. As I wrote in a column that appeared on the Internet an hour before the news broke, Johnson's group was the obvious and best choice over out-of-town billionaires Steve Cohen and Stan Kroenke. 

After successfully boycotting Dodger Stadium enough to convince MLB to run McCourt out of town, Dodgers fans are distrusting and disillusioned, and Johnson's group is the only one with the credibility to quickly bring them back. 

Johnson, whose business acumen equals his former Lakers court sense, will become a full-time team executive with an office in Dodger Stadium and a giant welcoming reach that will stretch to every corner of the disaffected Dodgers nation. Kasten, a traditional baseball guy who built the perennially contending Atlanta Braves from scratch and help shape the surging Washington Nationals, was interested in the Dodgers before McCourt bought the team in 2004 and has long held a dream of restoring them to greatness. 

When I interviewed Johnson in December when The Times broke the news of his decision to pursue the team, he said, "The Dodgers are my next big thing. This is not just millions of my money, this is dear to my heart. This is bringing back the brand for the people of Los Angeles."
At the time, Johnson said his goal would be to bring the Dodgers back to the popularity level currently enjoyed by his former team. 

"When I first got to town [in 1979], the Dodgers were on Page 1 of the L.A. Times and the Lakers were on Page 3," Johnson said. "I've seen how the Dodgers can be as big as the Lakers, and I want that to happen again." 

We know little about Walter and the Guggenheim folks, who will fund their majority contribution from out-of-state insurance companes, but we know that they have convinced Johnson and Kasten that it's not about real estate or television, but baseball. 

In that same December interview, Johnson said he auditioned six prospective bidders before deciding on the Guggenheim group for winning reasons. 

"The first thing I asked Walter was, 'Do you want to win, and do you want to put money in?" Johnson said at the time. "He said, 'Absolutely.'" 

Johnson said the future Dodgers owner says the things you hear from championship owners.
"Listening to Walter talk about winning, it was like listening to Jerry Buss," Johnson said. "He told me three times, 'All I want to do is get to the World Series.' I know great owners, and this guy can be a great owner." 

Of course, once the initial love fest ends, the tough stuff begins. 

The new owners know that Dodgers fans are not a bunch of poor saps on a deserted beach standing around an "SOS" rock formation and waiting desperately for the first ship to save them. They know that Dodgers fans are, instead, huddled and hidden in a clump of trees in the middle of the island, defiant, distrustful, and willing to remain out of sight until somebody shows up with enough smarts and savvy and charm to coax them back home. 

Two billion dollars will buy the new owners no love or respect or even 30,000 folks on a school night in September. Two billion dollars will only buy them two billion questions from the toughest crowd they've ever faced. 

Those hundreds of thousands of Dodgers fans who abandoned Chavez Ravine will need more than simple answers. They will need action, they will need explanation, they will need a group that can proactively reestablish the bonds of this city's most enduring yet most abused connection with a sports franchise. 

In my opinion, they needed Magic. 

On Tuesday night, they got him, and the fastbreak is on. 

bill.plaschke@latimes.com
twitter.com/billplaschke

Keep thinking back to Tommy LaSorda and Sparky Anderson -- two of the best managers ever.  They were so fun to watch at baseball games as they both were fiery managers.  Those were fun times to attend their games and makes me want to go see a Reds/Dodger game this year.  A lot of baseball fans here in Oklahoma but then we have Johnny Bench, Mickey Mantle, and Willie Stargell for starters of players born here plus one of the best high school summer leagues in the Country.  

We used to laugh because when we sent to see a game, Johnny Bench would hit a home run.  Told Dad maybe they should give us free tickets.  I grew up at going to Red's games with Dad and Mom.  My Dad always had the Reds on when they were playing sitting out under the awning of the garage listening to every pitch.  Sports have always been a big part of my life and I owe that to my Dad who raised me on football, basketball, and then his love of baseball and the Cincinnati Reds.  His grandson is just like him on the Reds and sports as a whole.

Remember when I got my first 'real' job at Wright-Patterson AFB and that fall I bought box seats for the family to go see the Reds/Dodgers game in Riverfront.  It was such a great feeling to see my Dad so happy as we were so close to the field and right behind the Reds.  It was a double header and we all had a great time.  That is what it was like to grow up in Middle America where you played sandlot baseball with the neighborhood kids trying to emulate the big league players with a softball.  We lived right across from the school so all we had to do was cut through my Uncle's lawn and we were at a baseball field.

Baseball spring training is in full swing and it will soon be time for Opening Day on the 5th of April.

Congratulations to Dodger fans -- looking forward to renewing the Reds/Dodgers rivalry in the years ahead as both teams to back to the top.  Now if we could get a new Commissioner, life would be great in the world of baseball.  

Boehner: Lay Off Traveling President

By ALEXANDER BURNS |

3/27/12 10:25 AM EDT

Jake Sherman email from the Hill:

Speaker John Boehner showed a sliver of daylight with Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney Tuesday morning, saying it’s inappropriate to criticize an American president while he’s traveling overseas. 

The Ohio Republican was asked Tuesday morning about whether he agrees with Romney that Russia is the United States’ number one geopolitical foe. He declined to engage. 

“Clearly the president is overseas,” Boehner said after a closed meeting of House Republicans. “He's at a conference and while the president is overseas, I think it’s appropriate that people not be critical of him or of our country.” 

Boehner is the only elected House Republican leader who hasn’t endorsed Romney – Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) are on Romney’s team.

Source:  Politico Burns and Haberman Daily Blog

Is Romney really this clueless?  It has been protocol for years that you don't criticize a sitting President while he is overseas representing the United States.  First Romney doesn't understand Russia with his Delusional Foreign Policy as documented by The Pink Flamingo.  Now Romney doesn't understand you do not criticize the President especially during a Presidential campaign when he is traveling overseas.  That shows a lack of Romney paying attention over the years to foreign policy, but yet he wants to be President?  Why?

Bureaucratic Gas yet We Wonder Why Gas is So High?

How many jobs has the EPA cost this Country with their quirky rules?  A state will meet their standards and then they tighten them some more.  If I could choose one agency to lose their clout and be merged into the Interior, it would be the EPA and some of their junk science.


This article is right on the money.  If I am traveling to Dallas, I always get gas on the way down in Gainesville, TX, in the reformulated gas months as they are outside the reformulated area of Dallas/Fort Worth.  Usually get gas there coming back or in Ardmore, OK, so I don't have to pay an additional ten cents.  Used to buy lottery tickets all the time and then Oklahoma finally got the lottery.  There is only one small problem with scratch offs in Oklahoma, they have better odds of winning in Texas.  Get gas, buy a lottery ticket when you cross the Texas border works for very well.  More than once I have paid for dinner with the winnings.  

When it comes to air pollution, there’s always been the country as a whole and then California, which because of its unique geography and climate has always had the nation’s worst air pollution levels by a considerable margin. Congress has always given California special leeway in crafting air pollution regulations that go beyond what the EPA requires of the other 49 states.

The author was talking about the Clean Air Act of 1990 in relation to California but we ran into their strict smog restrictions when we were transferred to Norton AFB, San Bernardino, in 1981.  A friend of ours who worked with my husband but also loved to tinker with cars outside of the Air Force kept tweaking our car until it finally passed the out of state inspection for cars not manufactured for California.  Our truck passed with flying colors as he only tweaked it once.  They were both almost new vehicles but looked like GM had made it easier with the truck to pass the out-of-state inspection in California.  Every year we were there we had to get a waiver as our Buick wagon would never meet their requirements so we would go back to our friend, he would tweak it, we would pass, and then go back to him to put it back to normal so we had good gas mileage.  I cannot even fathom how bad it is today in California.  They were nuts then.

When Los Angeles were host to the Olympics in 1984, they ruled that trucks had to stay off the interstates from 6 in the morning until later in the evening.  Then they asked people to carpool or go in at different times.  Not only did we not have traffic jams in the LA basin but smog was almost non-existent.  Wouldn't you have thought they would have figured out that one of the primary causes might be trucks?  As soon as the Olympics departed LA everything returned to normal including the smog, trucks on the freeways at all hours, and huge traffic jams.  We could look down at the smog from where we lived in Upper Yucaipa.  When it was clear you could see the Anaheim Hills.  

Then they have the lanes for two or more people which is a joke -- it goes for several miles and then they all merge back over causing more traffic jams.  It took my youngest daughter and I over 2 1/2 hours to leave University City and get to the San Bernardino County line where traffic started flowing better, and we were able to go to In and Out Burger without risking an accident by getting off and back on the freeway.   Should have gone around through Pasadena and then come down but never thought it would be that bad.  Lesson learned!  It was our first trip back in years.  If a place needed tons of light rail, it is the LA area.

Cannot believe the amount of different kinds of gasoline that are being produced.  I wondered when we went to Phoenix for the Bowl Game stopping in Denver with family first and saw 86 octane at the pump when we always have 87.  It never dawned on me each state sets their own standards for gasoline that will meet the EPA standards.  We don't have reformulated gas in Oklahoma thanks to the clear thinking of our two Senators who took the EPA to court and won.

Bureaucratic Gas
To lower prices at the pump, abolish the boutique fuel regime.
Apr 2, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 28 • By STEVEN F. HAYWARD 

Quick: How many kinds of gasoline do we use in America? Most people would say three or six: regular unleaded, mid-grade, and premium, along with the ethanol blends of the same that have become nearly universal. The actual number is somewhere above 45, though hard to pin down exactly, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). It might even be closer to 70. Thirty-four states use specially blended gasoline, usually during the summer, which is one reason gasoline prices always rise during the “driving season.”

Thomas Fluharty

If you want a good idea of why this makes no sense, meet me in St. Louis. St. Louis, Missouri, uses one kind of gasoline; East St. Louis, Illinois, right across the Mississippi River, uses a different blend. Meanwhile, the surrounding suburbs use a third kind. Same metropolitan area, different gasolines, and they can’t be sold across jurisdictional lines, so refiners and distributors must maintain three separate systems for the three parts of the St. Louis metro area.

Is this a conspiracy of the evil oil companies to fatten their margins? Mostly no: It’s the product of EPA bureaucrats and the Clean Air Act, stubbornly maintained even though boutique fuels now deliver only marginal reductions in air pollution from cars, if any at all. And it’s a regulation President Obama could clear away if he wanted to. It wouldn’t deliver a large reduction in gasoline pump prices, but even 10 to 15 cents a gallon—a plausible figure for California’s market—would help.

When Congress took up the Clean Air Act of 1990, it decided to take reformulated gasoline national. This is where the mischief starts. The infant ethanol industry saw an opening to juice up the market for its uncompetitive product if oxygenates were mandated for the entire national gasoline market, even though there is strong evidence that ethanol, though an oxygenate, actually increases ozone. No matter: The mania to promote “alternative fuels” was shoehorned into the Clean Air Act as an adjunct, and while environmentalists generally like mandates, one other party really liked this particular one: the refining industry. 

The bizarre world of boutique gasoline owes its origin to the usual suspects: California (of course) and the congressional sausage-rolling involved in the writing of the Clean Air Act of 1990. When it comes to air pollution, there’s always been the country as a whole and then California, which because of its unique geography and climate has always had the nation’s worst air pollution levels by a considerable margin. Congress has always given California special leeway in crafting air pollution regulations that go beyond what the EPA requires of the other 49 states. But this frequently wreaks havoc with national industries, especially autos, since any auto mandate passed in California essentially is imposed on the entire country. Carmakers don’t want to make one kind of car for California and another for everywhere else. But oil refiners are a different matter: They could readily make a different kind of gasoline for California—one that would help the auto industry solve some of its compliance problems. 

As California was ramping up its plans to fight smog in the late 1980s, there was talk of imposing very stringent tailpipe emissions standards on California cars, and perhaps even higher fuel economy standards to suppress fuel use. That’s when the oil refining industry stepped in with the idea to produce reformulated gasoline (RFG) for the California market that would deliver near-term environmental benefits by reducing emissions of unburned hydrocarbons from the auto fleet.  

A few basics about ozone explain why this made some sense in 1990. Ground-level ozone is the trickiest air pollution problem. Unlike other forms of air pollution, like sulfur dioxide, where there is basically a straightforward relation between what comes out of a smokestack and what’s in the air you breathe, ozone is not directly emitted from cars or factories. It’s a combination of several chemicals that have to “cook” in sunlight. The amount produced depends on temperature, humidity, and geography. Different parts of the country can thus have wildly different ozone levels even with identical emissions, and the same metropolitan area can have wildly different ozone levels from day to day. Ozone tends to be much worse in hot summer weather than in winter, though there are exceptions, such as mile-high Denver and Minnesota. (Some areas of California actually experience higher ozone levels on weekends, when there is much less driving and industrial activity. This counterintuitive “weekend effect” is driving air quality specialists slightly crazy right now.) 

A major component chemical for ozone is unburned hydrocarbons—essentially, gasoline that evaporates from car engines, gas pumps, and so forth. That’s one reason we started sealing car gas tanks with intake flaps, and redesigned gas pumps with those annoying sleeves to prevent evaporation of gasoline (called “fugitive emissions” in the trade). Reformulated gasolines aim to lower vapor pressure so there’s less evaporation, and use “oxygenates” to increase combustion in the engine so fewer unburned hydrocarbons go out the tailpipe. Back around 1990 it was calculated that reformulated gasoline could reduce hydrocarbon emissions from autos by as much as 20 percent.

There was nowhere near enough ethanol to satisfy the new oxygenate requirement, so most areas decided to use methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). It ended up being one of the great environmental disasters of modern times, and a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences. MTBE is a potent water pollutant, and leakage of MTBE from underground tanks began showing up on a large scale. The resulting uproar—and wave of lawsuits against oil companies—meant a swift end to MTBE, leaving mostly ethanol as the replacement, and sure enough, ethanol use in gasoline has grown almost twenty-fold since 1990.

Excerpt:  Read More at:  The Weekly Standard

Why is Romney Running as a Republican?

Times: Romney Relied on Kennedy to Help Pass 'Romneycare'
Sunday, 25 Mar 2012 06:47 PM
By Newsmax Wires
More ways to share...

As more truth comes out about Romney, the more conservatives are asking "Why is Romney a Republican?" and the answer lies in the fact the didn't want to oppose Ted Kennedy in the primary so he thought he would get the Republican nomination and run against Senator Kennedy in the general.

Then there are the details that came out that when he was running for Governor in 2002, he ran away from Republicans and Reagan the whole campaign.  Massachusetts residents thought they were getting a liberal Republican which they did.  Only when he decided that after Romneycare he wouldn't get a second term, he decided to track more to the middle to run for President.  Isn't that great -- you cannot get reelected as Governor so you decide to wait two years and run for President.

Once again we ask why did the establishment types think Romney was such a good candidate when conservatives cannot stand him?  This is another example why over 70% of voters in state after state vote for anyone but Romney but yet he is still shoved in our face as he is going to be our candidate.  If he is, it will be because he won so many delegates from Blue States like California and New York where it is hard to find enough conservatives to offset the liberals.  Essentially we have solid blue states choosing our nominee and this is supposed to be good?  I forgot -- conservatives are supposed to sit down, shut up, and vote for Romney in the fall against Obama who is the end of the earth.  So we vote for Obama lite instead?

Looks to me like the people in charge don't have a clue how conservatives think or are going to react.  Don't know anyone who is voting for Romney in various states and they don't like Obama.  Romney is no candidate of conservative Republicans who far outnumber the moderate to liberals in the party, but we don't control the party so they felt free to stick it to conservatives this time with Romney who couldn't beat McCain.  May be for the last time as conservatives won't be silenced no matter how much the elites say we should shut up or those annoying, nasty Romney supporters.

Time to clean house at the RNC and get rid of the Chair from Wisconsin.  Why should a chair from a blue state be running things at the RNC.  Blue states that are large get more delegates than reliably red states so they can choose their moderate to liberal candidates.  Disgusting way to do business.  Whoever decided Romney was the answer needs FIRED yesterday!

Times: Romney Relied on Kennedy to Help Pass 'Romneycare'

Sunday, 25 Mar 2012 06:47 PM

By Newsmax Wires

GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney was so close a partner with the liberal late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in the crafting of Massachusetts' sweeping healthcare law that he frequently referred to Kennedy as “my collaborator and friend.” 

Now, of course, Romney is depicting himself as a “severe conservative” and doing everything he can to distance himself from the law that was the basis for Obamacare — the president’s signature healthcare law, The New York Times points out in an extensive article Sunday on the relationship. 

Among other things, the Times reveals that:

• Romney’s attempt in 1994 to “out-Kennedy Kennedy” during a Senate race led him to take stands on issues like abortion and gay rights that he has since backed away from, giving rise to accusations that he is a flip-flopper.

• Romney did not make healthcare a cause when he ran for governor in 2002. But by the fall of 2004, changing circumstances in Washington pushed him into it — and into a partnership with Kennedy.

• With Democrats in control of the state legislature,Romney had little hope of passing a massive healthcare bill on his own. Kennedy worked lawmakers behind the scenes, writing notes, cajoling, making telephone calls and stepping in when negotiations between House and Senate Democrats broke down.

• Kennedy schooled Romney, who was notorious for not knowing many lawmakers by name, in how to woo Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature to get the healthcare law passed. In particularly difficult moments for the bill, Romney would attempt to adopt Kennedy’s personal touch leading Democratic lawmakers.

• Kennedy had more pull with the Republican Bush administration and actually intervened on Romney’s behalf to get a deal with the federal government that extended the waiver of certain federal rules, giving Massachusetts flexibility in administering its Medicaid program and extra money for hospitals that cared for the poor. That helped pave the way for what is now known as “Romneycare,” or as some Republican conservatives put it, “Obamneycare.”

© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Read more on Newsmax.com: Times: Romney Relied on Kennedy to Help Pass 'Romneycare' Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

The Word From On High: Shut Up About Romney but Support him in November

This is one conservative who refuses to sit down and shut up about Romney.  I will not be bullied into keeping quiet so it is a waste of anyone's time.  Have been saying that for weeks and looks like I am not alone because when I found the video of Romney from ten years ago running away from Reagan and Republicans which I posted below, I also found this article which details what many of us have been told on our own sites and on sites where we have been posting for years which is to sit down, shut up, and support Romney in November.  The arrogance coming out of the Romney camp and the elite establishment in this election knows no bounds.

 Romney wouldn't be this far in the election if Obama was not the President.  The Koch Brothers/Crossroads controlled RNC keeps putting out how we must beat Obama or basically the world we know is coming to an end.  Scare tactics are not working well as witnessed by the primaries.  When it is Republican voters in more conservative areas, Romney cannot get to first base.  His biggest wins are in the same places that are Obama strongholds and yet the powers at be think he can win?

Romney himself said he is not worried about conservatives because they will be there to vote for him in November.  That is extremely arrogant especially after 2008 when many conservatives said that was the last time they would vote for a candidate they didn't like.  Looks like I am not the only one seeing the "Shut up About Romney" from the Elites, Romney supporters, and Pundits:

The Word From On High: Shut Up About Romney
This entry was posted on Friday, March 23rd, 2012 at 05:45 

He Wants Us To Shut Up 

This is what is being pushed today in conservative media. At first, I thought it was just me receiving emails urging me to begin rallying around Romney “for the good of the party” and “for the good of the country.” Apparently, I’m not alone, and apparently, Mark Levin is receiving such emails too. I thank those of you who sent me such emails, but I’ll give you my answer here, in the open: I have deleted your emails with extreme prejudice. (That means that I deleted them, then undeleted them, and deleted them AGAIN…just for fun.) I actually printed one out that had been particularly annoying, and deleted it with a match. 

The Romney Campaign does not pick the nominee on this blog. Don’t email me as an activist for the Romney campaign, urging me to stop talking about Romney. I’m going to talk about Romney’s extensive failings until he wins or loses. I’m going to remind my readers of the truth about this candidate. While a blog is like an “etch-a-sketch,” or like Mitt Romney(apparently the same,) I am not. Conservatives don’t give up or give over that easily, and I’ll be damned before I’ll be prodded into it. 

Even tonight on the promo for the 8pm-er (Bill O’Reilly,) he was hollering about “stop[ping] this stuff.” I see. When Mitt’s campaign staffer came out and shoved both hooves down his own throat on CNN yesterday, we should ignore it, get beyond it, and stop talking about it, but when Newt Gingrich said two words about Mitt Romney’s activities at Bain Capital, we should pile on for weeks on end. Or, when Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife is trotted out to slam him by ABC News, we should talk about it for weeks on end. When Rick Santorum mentions the evils of pornography as an aside, that should dominate the headlines and stories for weeks. When Mitt Romney runs ads accusing his rivals of being less than conservative, while claiming he is, we should ignore Eric Fehrnstrom’s remarks to CNN. I see… 

Well, I don’t see! I don’t see why Mitt Romney is somehow exempt, or why it is that the flubs and foibles of his campaign should be ignored, while his own operatives in media spend time hammering away on his opponents. You Romney flacks(and I don’t here mean average Romney supporters, I mean his activist set) are full of yourselves lately, and it’s getting out of control, and there’s a reason your candidate’s negatives are on the steep incline: Your candidate has been repeatedly exposed as non-conservative, and yesterday’s remarks by Fehrnstrom are merely confirmations of what we’ve known. 

It’s time to deal with reality. The conservative base of the Republican party doesn’t want another establishment candidate. They may be divided over which of the others should be the anti-Mitt, but they’re sure it shouldn’t be him. The reason is simple, and despite the cajoling, I’m not going away, and I’m not going to forget. I’m going to remind my readers every time it strikes me to do so that Mitt Romney is fatally flawed. Today, Barack Obama provided an example of what he’s going to do to Romney over health-care, and it’s why Romney will abandon the issue of Obamacare come the Fall campaign. 

Get ready for it. Get ready for it to be the issue Romney avoids like the plague, and Obama is already testing the waters of his campaign on that basis. (More on that later.) The thing to realize is that the Romney campaign and all of its myriad establishment surrogates are making a big push to kill this process off before they get to the states in which he’ll be weak. More, the Etch-a-Sketch remark is doing substantial damage because it taps into what many conservatives worried about Romney from the outset: He’s ideologically flimsy at best, and I would argue simply vacuous. While none of the writers who contacted me on Thursday on Romney’s behalf admitted or purported to be part of the Romney official campaign, I noticed none of them were subscribers to this blog either. That’s the giveaway, along with the very narrow window in which all the emails arrived. 

Conservatives shouldn’t permit themselves to be bullied by the Romney campaign. You can bet I won’t. 

Source:  http://markamerica.com/2012/03/23/the-word-from-on-high-shut-up-about-romney/

This person is saying what a lot of us have been saying.  The idea that we are asked to shut up about the truth on Romney so he can win the nomination is ludicrous.  When did the powers at be in the Republican Party become Democrat lite?

We are at a crossroads in this election when it comes to whether conservatives will stay with the Republican Party when it is fast leaving many of us and fight for control or will decide it is time to leave the Party to the moderate to liberal Republicans and move on to form a new Conservative Party that actually has core values.  The jury is out but if I was betting, I would say the outcry from this primary is only going to get worse as time goes by and chances of conservatives finally having had it is only going to grow.  When a candidate does all the 'scorched earth' against fellow candidates, don't expect their supporters to fall in line for Romney because it is not going to happen.

What I find the most irritating is that the powers at be are telling voters in reliably red states to sit down and shut up about Romney while blue states who went Democrat in 2008 choose our nominee.  What kind of Republican Party is that?  

Maybe the idea for a bumperstrip by one of my friends is correct:  Republicans for Johnson.  I can actually see myself supporting former NM Governor Gary Johnson who was a Republican until the powers at be took him out and treated him like trash.  Kind of like they are doing to the grassroots as well.  BTW, those Tea Party people you heard about in IL that support Romney, willing to bet they are not the conservative Tea Party members.  Then we have the conservative media who has not been an honest broker in this primary except for a few like Mark Levin who will not be silenced.

Stay tuned as this primary is not over and all of us who do not support Romney are NOT shutting up!

Romney 2002 -- Who? Me? Republican?

This article reinforces my belief that Romney only became a Republican to run against Ted Kennedy in 1994 so that he would not have to meet him in a primary.  Since he ran to the left of Ted Kennedy, that even reinforces that belief.  Now we have an article about Democrats in New England who run as Republicans so they don't have to go through a primary.

It makes perfect sense that Romney's core values are Democrat because they sure are not conservative.  He is a Massachusetts liberal, plain and simple, and all this trash talk by his supporters that he is a conservative is not working as witnessed in Louisiana where Santorum clobbered Romney even though you had to look hard on Drudge to find the results as they were not on the headlines.  If Romney had won, it would have been all over the headlines.  The results were Santorum 49%, Romney 27%, Gingrich 16%, and Paul 6%.  Add the conservative votes together and you see exactly what conservatives are saying -- we don't want Romney as the nominee with 71% of Republicans voting against Romney and the establishment.  Looks the RNC Chair is going to allow states who went blue in 2008 to pick the Republican nominee.  No wonder the Democrats are so happy with Preibus.

Flashback: Meet Mitt Romney circa 2002

This entry was posted on Friday, March 23rd, 2012 at 19:45 

Who? Me? Republican? 

Here’s a quick video clip from 2002, when Mitt Romney was seeking the office of Governor in Massachusetts. He disclaims his association with the Republican party. What many of you from around the country may not know is that it’s common practice in the Northeast for Democrats to run for office as Republicans because in many cases, they can run unopposed in primaries since there are so few (relatively) Republicans vying for office. I can’t say that this had been what Mitt tried to imply here, but I wouldn’t be surprised. After all, as you may remember, he spent most of his 1994 Senatorial campaign against Ted Kennedy trying to distance himself from Reagan. 

This is the guy who wants to be your Republican nominee? 

While Etch-a-Sketch will try to re-write the meaning of this clip, I prefer to focus on reality: Mitt Romney is no conservative.

This is simply one more piece of evidence. 

Source:  MarkAmerica

Romney ran away from Reagan and Republicans as late as 2002 when he was running for Governor4, but even more telling was his wife saying in 1994 that they didn't know one Republican in MA yet he ran in the Republican primary -- purely an opportunist who shares none of the Republican core values:

“Independence and pragmatism” have been at the heart of Mitt Romney’s politics from his first entrance into the electoral arena, CNSNews.com reports today, with a look back at an article that revealed Romney as he was when he decided to run for the United States Senate in 1994:

“When Romney decided to run, Republicans exchanged quizzical looks: ‘We didn’t know a single Republican when we jumped in in December,’ his wife, Ann, says,” Brownstein reported. 

“As a registered independent, Romney had voted in the Democratic presidential primary in 1992 to support Paul E. Tsongas (though he backed George Bush in the general election, he says),” wrote Brownstein. ”He briefly considered running for the Senate seat as an independent as well, his wife says, before rejecting the idea as impractical.

“Independence and pragmatism remained at the center of his appeal, though,” wrote Brownstein. ”(Even today, he tries to keep his distance from a national Republican Party still held in some suspicion here: He has refused to sign onto the national GOP ‘contract’ party leaders are pushing in Washington.) 

“Romney offered himself not as a conservative, but a Weld-like moderate: frugal on spending and insistent that welfare recipients work for their checks, but supporting abortion rights and gay rights and willing to ban assault weapons,” wrote Brownstein.

Excerpt:  Read More at CNS 

He has been a fraud as a conservative from the first time he decided to run for President and it shows when you look at his background.  He is not a very good actor either.  This idea that his people are putting out he will govern as a conservative when he never has is enough to send you through the roof.  That Etch-A-Sketch comment was not a gaffe IMHO but a message to conservatives that he will run to the left against Obama just like he did Ted Kennedy and where he is comfortable.  Then if elected he will implement mandates for Romneycare nationwide.  Some conservative, not!

What Obama and Romney Have in Common: Healthcare and Love for High Gas Prices

UPDATE 03/23/2012, 3:07 cdt

The Rick Santorum campaign has sent out a statement following Romney's attack that Santorum was supporting Obama over Romney but that is not what Santorum was talking about. Romney's camp did what they do best which is taking someone's comments out of context.


Rick's response is here:

"I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney's policies mirror Barack Obama's. 

I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it's easy to see why - Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts. 

Voters have to be excited enough to actually go vote, and my campaign's movement to restore freedom is exciting this nation. If this election is about Obama versus the Obama-Lite candidate, we have a tough time rallying this nation. It's time for bold vision, bold reforms and bold contrasts. This election is about more than Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum - this campaign is about freedom and I will fight to restore your freedoms."

I am not voting for Obama either but that doesn't mean that I am voting for Romney.


******

All of us know that in 2009 Romney told Obama he should look at RomneyCare to use for ObamaCare including the mandates on individuals to buy health insurance.

So, the laws, while not identical, share many core elements. Next, we wondered if the federal law was indeed based on the Massachusetts law. 

Again, it’s difficult to know what people in Congress and in the White House looked at as they drafted the final health care law. But according to independent reports, they consulted people who worked on the Massachusetts law.

Then we have the infamous statements from Florida's Attorney General Pam Bondi

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Romney supporter, went on The Record last night. The Florida Republican told Greta Van Susteren that Mitt wants Romneycare in every state. 

She also said she would be on Romney’s Health Care Advisory Team when he’s president.

From Gateway Pundit:

So Romney and his co-conspirators in the GOP establishment are now planning a National Healthcare Task Force to impose top-down government run national healthcare on all 50 states!!

We know on healthcare that Romney and Obama have similar ideas since Obama followed a lot of RomneyCare for his ObamaCare, but we are also learning that they share a love of high gas prices:

March 22, 2012 by V2AWhat Obama and Romney Have in Common: Love for High Gas Prices 

Curiously overlooked, though, is just what a shift this rhetoric is from the approach that Romney took on the issue of gas prices while governor of Massachusetts. Befitting his profile as a moderate Republican who cared about the environment, Governor Romney responded to price spikes by describing them as the natural result of global market pressures and by calling for increases in fuel efficiency—the same approach that he now derides Obama for taking as president. 

At moments, Romney went so far as to make high gas prices out to be a welcome reality for the foreseeable future, one that people needed to learn to live with. When lieutenant governor Kerry Healey, a fellow Republican, called for suspending the state’s 23.5 cent gas tax during a price spike in May 2006, Romney rejected the idea, saying it would only further drive up gasoline consumption. “I don’t think that now is the time, and I’m not sure there will be the right time, for us to encourage the use of more gasoline,” Romney said, according to the Quincy Patriot Ledger’s report at the time. “I’m very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay.”   

Source:  Vision to America

Rick Santorum finally had the nerve to go on the record and say what many of us have been posting on blogs and in comments on various websites that Romney and his policies when the facts come out are not all that different from Obama.  Since we know what Obama is like, why would we go to someone like Etch-A-Sketch Romney who is planning a restart on what he believes or going back to his true moderate to liberal beliefs.  If anyone swallows that spin coming out of the Romney camp on the Etch-A-Sketch remark, then you are not analyzing what has been happening.  Since the Republican establishment is so intent on giving us Romney as our candidate, are they going to pull the strings on Romney because they are not close to being conservative either.

SAN ANTONIO -- Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn't the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy. 

Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast. 

"You win by giving people a choice," Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. "You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there." 

Santorum added: "If they're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future." 

Santorum was referencing Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom's comment Wednesday that "everything changes" for the fall campaign. "It's almost like an Etch A Sketch," he said on CNN. "You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again." 

The remark reignited criticism of Romney as the type of politician who will say or do anything to win.

Excerpt:  Read More at:  Huffington Post 

In fact some of the Republican moderates to liberals would be just as happy to see conservatives sent packing from the GOP.  It has become more obvious as this election has gone on that they could care less about what conservatives who are making up around 70% of the anti-Romney vote in the states think.  We are supposed to sit down, shut up, and vote against our conscience for the flip flopper Romney in the fall.  Not happening.

We found this statement to be on point:

I believe this places the liberals and moderates at the disadvantage, since conservative leaders have considerable experience at organizing grass-roots activism and building hugely influential movements out of almost nothing. The conservative wing of the Republican Party wants to keep the GOP, but doesn’t need it. Their moderate and liberal rivals need the GOP very badly. 

First of all conservatives are better organized and have an ability if they want to put a third party together and become viable very fast IMO.  The grassroots long before the Tea Party were the backbone of conservative campaigns throughout the country.  We showed what can be done in 2004 when the establishment came down hard against Senate Coburn.  Grassroots rolled up their sleeves, went to work, and beat the Clinton candidate big time even though the powers at be like Karl Rove had cut off Coburn fundraising.

That energy and enthusiasm can be taken nationwide if necessary so the establishment is playing with fire this time trying to ram Romney down our throats when his record is much closer to Obama then it is to conservatives.  He is not a very good actor at being conservative as you can see right through the attempts.  The people of Mississippi let Romney know what they thought of his pandering.

With over 70% of the votes in most primaries, except in very liberal states, for the conservative candidates, it shows conservatives are not happy with Romney.  This notion from the Romney camp we are going to be on board in the fall is not going to happen IMO.  The establishment types were warned with McCain not to try to try it again yet McCain looks very conservative compared to Romney.  I actually supported McCain after Rudy withdrew but I know a lot of conservatives who held their noses and voted for him.  Without Sarah Palin on the ticket, he would have had even less votes.

Why has the establishment pushed Romney at conservatives so hard and why have some conservatives endorsed Romney and not other candidates?  Read the Pink Flamingo today who has an excellent article, Nuking Newt, which details what has been happening in this campaign and it does not bode well for the establishment candidate Romney in the fall.  All his attacks against fellow Republicans have taken a big toll and most of us figure that the Democrats are going to give it back at him in spades while some of us sit and tell the establishment "We Told You So" as we will not be taken fore granted again by the moderate to liberal establishment types in the GOP.

It is doubtful any endorsement these days carries all that much weight. Bush 41 had a similar profile to Romney during his political career. Like Romney, Bush came from wealth, flip-flopped on abortion and was unreliable on the key economic issue of his day (substitute his “read my lips” switch on raising taxes for Romneycare). So it’s not likely that Tea Partiers and social conservatives, most of whom never had much use for George W. Bush’s father in the first place, will be swayed by his support for Romney.

Is Bush 41 trying to get even with conservatives for turning their backs on him after he worked with the Democrats after saying "Read my Lips:  No New Taxes" to raise taxes?  Is this also why Congressman Quayle is having trouble with the establishment types going after him since his father who was the Vice President was against the deal made by Bush 41?  As we have seen, the Bush Family carries grudges which they used against Rick Perry in this Presidential primary and tried to take him out with Kay Bailey in the Governor's primary in 2010.  Now Kay Bailey is back on the attack against Perry in Texas over women's health issues.  Bush 41 and his cronies don't give up which leads us to wonder if this election pushing Romney is get even with Newt and others who they blame for Bush 41 losing:

Some of the most enraged over the change in policy were other Republicans, including House Whip Newt Gingrich, the Senate leadership, and Vice President Dan Quayle. They felt Bush had destroyed the Republicans' most potent election plank for years to come. That the Republican leadership was not consulted before Bush made the deal also angered them. This perceived betrayal quickly led to a bitter feud within the Republican Party. When Sununu called Gingrich with the news, Gingrich hung up on him in anger. When Senator Trent Lott questioned the reversal, Sununu told the press that "Trent Lott has become an insignificant figure in this process."  Republican National Committee co-chair Ed Rollins, who issued a memo instructing Republican congress members to distance themselves from the president if they wished to be re-elected, was fired from his position.  

Many also felt that, while perhaps necessary, the reneging was badly handled. Bush's statement on the issue was simply posted on the notice board in the press room. There was no attempt to sell or defend the reversal. It was also very sudden; there was no attempt to slowly convince the American people of the perceived necessity of raising taxes. No figures with influence on the conservative base were recruited to endorse and try and sell the about-face. 

Eventually taxes were raised in the new budget. In September, Bush released a new budget proposal, backed by the congressional leadership, which notably included an immediate five-cent per gallon increase on the federal gasoline tax, and a phased increase of even higher fuel taxes in subsequent years. To the surprise of the Bush administration, this plan was rejected in the House of Representatives. Over a hundred conservative Republicans, led by Gingrich, voted against it because of its tax increases

Looks like Bush 41 and Romney have a lot in common from their upbringing to raising gasoline taxes as I highlighted in the paragraph above.  Never thought Bush 41 was all that conservative and put Dan Quayle on the ticket to appease conservatives.  Know that Bush's sons wanted Quayle off the ticket in 1992 but wasn't sure of the reason.  Was it because Quayle didn't go along with the deal Bush 41 cut on his own with the Democrats?  Is this also why the media went after Quayle so hard when he was Vice President so he couldn't run for President?   Is this also why Dan Quayle's son, Ben Quayle, who is running for reelection to Congress is being attacked by fellow Republicans from out of state?

Is Romney expected to be the second term of Bush 41 he never had as he was defeated in a three way race as a lot of conservatives went to Ross Perot?  Is this what all of this mess is about -- sticking it to conservatives once again?  If it is, Bush 41 and his cronies didn't learned a thing from 1992 or 1996.

All these questions and no answers right now but sooner or later the truth will come out.  For now suffice to say that Bush 41 and his cronies in the GOP are continuing to push Romney to the detriment of the entire Republican Party.  If you cannot support Romney, there will be other choices, but one thing that must happen is for Republicans to Keep the House and Take the Senate so that whoever is President has to deal with Conservative official holders.

Oklahoma's Energy chiefs' message: Actions, not words, will determine energy future

Maybe someone can explain why Obama came to Cushing, OK, which is the hub for the southern part of the pipeline because it makes no sense that he would come into Oklahoma the way he has treated our oil and gas industry since he took office.  This message greeted him when he arrived but we suspect his aides didn't allow him to see the facts about the energy industry in Oklahoma and how disgusted they have become at the policies of Obama and his Administration when it comes to oil and gas.

So proud to be from Oklahoma and have leaders of our oil and gas industry along with our Governor not be afraid to stand up to Obama and his administration giving the facts not spin that the current President has been spouting.  This visit highlights how out of touch Obama is with Middle America and our oil and gas industry.  This message should be resounding across America -- "Actions, not words, will determine energy future."  It makes great campaign slogan for candidates running for the House and Senate against the Democrats whose leadership have been stonewalling the northern of the Keystone pipeline.  Oklahoma Energy Chief's have it right with this editorial:

Energy chiefs' message: Actions, not words, will determine energy future

BY HAROLD HAMM, AUBREY MCCLENDON, LARRY NICHOLS AND TOM WARD | Published: March 21, 2012 

Welcome to Oklahoma, President Obama. We hope you develop a better understanding of the oil and gas industry, one of the largest and most vibrant sectors in the United States, during your visit. As Americans, we share a mutual desire to power our nation with homegrown energy sources. We join you in wanting to secure our energy future by lessening our dangerous dependency on imported oil. 

No energy source can do more good for America than domestic oil and gas. You often mention the need for more well-paying jobs. Our companies are creating them — in particular, tens of thousands of every skill level from rig workers and truck drivers to top-flight engineers and Ph.D.s. 

The paradigm shift in American oil and gas exploration and production is the brightest spot in our struggling economy. Keeping it going requires understanding of some critical business realities:
Approval of the entire Keystone XL pipeline should happen now — not after the election. Yes, we are pleased TransCanada decided to build a critical section of the project from Cushing to the Gulf Coast. We note that this section doesn't require State Department approval. However, America's greatest benefit will come when we can transport oil from our best energy partner, Canada, and oil-rich North Dakota and Montana. 

Private-sector innovation led to the combination of horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing resulting in the most significant resource revolution in the nation's history. The safe and responsible application of these technologies has added new proven gas and oil reserves once inconceivable, and it has made U.S. energy independence a distinct possibility in just the next 10 years. We have now safely and successfully fracture treated 1.2 million wells in the U.S. since 1948 and more than 45,000 wells in 2011 — a safety record that would be the envy of any industry in the country. 

As large independent energy companies, we almost always reinvest more than we receive from selling oil and gas production. Therefore, punitive tax increases such as eliminating the business deduction of drilling costs or selectively increasing the energy industry's corporate tax rate by abolishing deductions available to other manufacturers would give us no option but to reduce our drilling programs, resulting in fewer jobs and higher prices. 

Our industry invests billions of dollars to ensure our operations are conducted in an environmentally responsible manner. However, with more than a dozen federal agencies in your administration proposing, planning or implementing new regulations — for little or no environmental benefit — there is considerable risk that increased costs and bureaucratic delays will cripple America's energy production and halt the renaissance under way in our nation's steel, plastics, chemical and agricultural industries. 

The newfound abundance of oil and gas in America creates for the first time in 50 years the opportunity to break OPEC's headlock on the American economy and reinvigorate America's industrial foundation. 

Mr. President, your words suggest you want the economic benefits American natural gas and oil can deliver. We hope your actions follow suit — to date they have not. 

The authors lead Oklahoma City-based large independent oil and gas exploration and production companies Continental Resources, Chesapeake Energy, Devon Energy and SandRidge Energy.

Read more: http://newsok.com/energy-chiefs-message-actions-not-words-will-determine-energy-future/article/3659335#ixzz1pstWVP9p

Governor Fallin Statement Regarding President Obama’s Remarks in Cushing

This one paragraph from Governor Fallin says it all about President Obama on energy:

“This kind of intermittent ‘support’ for the industry is not good enough. The president is here in Oklahoma taking credit for successes in oil and gas production that his administration has nothing to do with and, in many cases, continues to actively obstruct.  (my bold)

Have been waiting for someone to finally speak out about Obama taking credit for something he had nothing to do with.  This is why Governor Fallin is such a breath of fresh air not only in our State of Oklahoma but in the Republican Party and America.  She tells it like it is and doesn't mince words trying to curry favor with Obama or his people.  Best Governor in the Country IMHO.  The Governor stands up for the people of Oklahoma and our oil and gas industry which fuels our state's economy.  This press release with the truth about this President and his Administration on energy made my Friday afternoon:

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 22, 2012

Governor Fallin Statement Regarding President Obama’s Remarks in Cushing

OKLAHOMA CITY – Governor Mary Fallin today released the following statement regarding President Obama’s remarks on energy policy during a visit to Cushing, Okla.: 

“I am happy that President Obama took the time to visit Oklahoma today, and I welcome him to our great state. Oklahoma offers a fine example of how a thriving energy industry coupled with pro-growth policies can lead to low unemployment and a strong economy. Energy exploration and production is an important part of our history and our current success, and it is my hope the president was able to learn something from our many industry experts during his time here.

“In his remarks today, President Obama said he supports an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy. As evidence of that support, he cites the Cushing pipeline, an important project being developed and paid for by TransCanada, a private sector corporation. In this case the president’s ‘support’ means that he will not actively use the federal bureaucracy to sabotage this project as he has so many others.

“This kind of intermittent ‘support’ for the industry is not good enough. The president is here in Oklahoma taking credit for successes in oil and gas production that his administration has nothing to do with and, in many cases, continues to actively obstruct.

“The northern leg of the Keystone XL Pipeline, for instance, would result in the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. Those jobs and dollars have been lost because the president has not had the guts to stand up to environmental extremists in his own party who view traditional fossil fuels as a hazardous waste instead of a valuable asset.

“Regulations handed down by the EPA continue to be increasingly onerous and expensive obstacles to producing American-made energy. Permits for drilling continue to be delayed. Meanwhile, gas prices are rising, American families are feeling the pinch, and potential opportunities for job creation are being thrown away.

“The fact of the matter is President Obama’s rhetoric is matched with a policy record that is aggressively anti-energy and continues to stifle economic growth in Oklahoma and throughout the nation. The president urgently needs to reexamine his policies, not deliver more speeches taking credit for the accomplishments of others.”

###

Governor Fallin Statement on President Obama’s Visit to Cushing

President Obama is to land in Oklahoma City later this afternoon in time to attend the OKC Thunder versus LA Clippers pro basketball game tonight, and then make a trip to Cushing tomorrow which is the hub for the southern part of the Keystone Pipeline.

There is a reason that a lot of us believe Governor Fallin is the best Governor we have had and this press release shows her class plus getting her message across.

The OK Governor takes on Obama and his Administration for their obstructionist agenda on the northern part of the Keystone pipeline in this Press Release from her office and not sugar coating a thing.  This is one reason she is so refreshing as Governor after eight years of a Democrat Governor caretaker in office.  Governor Fallin is not afraid to say what she thinks and continually stands up for the people of Oklahoma.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  

March 21, 2012 

Governor Fallin Statement on President Obama’s Visit to Cushing

OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin issued the following statement today regarding President Barack Obama’s visit to Cushing, Oklahoma, where he is scheduled to discuss energy policy: 

“I am pleased that President Obama is able to make his first visit to the great state of Oklahoma this week and to personally see the good work going on in Cushing. The TransCanada pipeline to be built there will connect Oklahoma to oil markets on the Gulf Coast, resulting in the creation of more than 1,000 Oklahoma jobs. This project will help to bolster our energy industry and security for years to come.

“I am glad the president supports the construction of the pipeline connecting Cushing to the Gulf. Impeding the progress of something which is so obviously beneficial to both the economy and the energy security of the United States would have been nothing short of irresponsible. 

“Unfortunately, President Obama and his administration are practicing exactly this kind of obstructionism on the northern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried oil from the Canadian oil sands and several U.S. markets to Cushing. As a result, the United States must go without the hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment that would have otherwise been available to stimulate our economy. Just as importantly, the administration’s decision undermines U.S. energy security and alienates our closest trading partner, Canada.

“I hope that while President Obama is in Oklahoma he takes some time to listen to our citizens, many of whom work for the energy industry which he claims to support. I think they will tell him that – far from supporting the responsible domestic production of American-made energy – his administration has undermined it at every turn. Rather than embracing the truly remarkable technological breakthroughs that have resulted in the discovery of an additional 100-year supply of natural gas, the president and the EPA continue their hostility to basic and time-tested practices like hydraulic fracturing. The president and his party in Washington continue to support an aggressively anti-energy agenda that will severely hamper the American economy and put the United States at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of the world.

“In Oklahoma, we recognize that the energy industry is an important ally in job creation and economic development. We believe that American energy is a resource, not a hazardous waste. My great hope is that some of that attitude will rub off on our president, who has lost his way on energy policy and so many other issues.” 

###