Whiplash II

Ed Morrissey has more fall out for Senator Obama today.

The New York Times editorial board went to bed with a virgin and woke up with a … well, a pro, in milder terms, or so they seem to imply in today’s unhappy missive. The editorial castigates Obama for his replacement of just about everything he has professed from January 2007 to May 2008 with his all-new, 50%-more-”centery” agenda that rejects everything that made him attractive to the Left in the first place. And they wonder where it will all stop:

To say that the NY Times is disillusioned with their candidate is a bit of an understatement.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

At first blush, it appears that the Times is taking the Senator to task here however the Logical Husband pointed out the following...

We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms.

...and commented on the nice way that the Times used this as a tacit "he's not as socialist as you think he is" or "see he's more conservative than we are!" centrist endorsement. Now the Logical Husband grew up in New York and with the NY Times. He knows their style of doing things. He also has a New Yorkers tendency to be just a little cynically pragmatic.

It could very well be that the NY Times is mirroring the far lefts disillusionment with Senator Obama's campaign. It could really be that straight forward. However, it does give one pause....a reason to stop and think about what is really going on in the minds of the editorial board at the New York Times.

Whiplash!

One of the hallmark issues of every Democrat running for office this year has been the issue of Iraq. All have campaigned on bringing the troops home immediately regardless of conditions on the ground and the desires of the generals in theater. During every primary debate, the collective candidates were rushing to see who could court the Code Pink, Daily Kos, get us out of Iraq NOW wing of the Democratic Party fastest. Senator Barack Obama was just as guilty as Rep. Dennis Kucinich was in doing so. In debate after debate, Senator Obama stated that he would pull troops out of Iraq by the end of 2009, that Iraq was a "distraction" from a host of other global threats and that it took our eye off of al Qaeda and Afghanistan.

Well today, at a campaign appearance at the Children's Museum in Fargo, ND Senator Obama changed his tune. The NY Times, I think, said it best in their headline "Obama Might 'Refine' Iraq Timeline".

Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to “refine my policies” about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.

Fox News has more and MPR actually covered the speech on their "Midday" program. Needless to say, this is not sitting well with the vocal members of the left-roots. What got to me was this comment.

graz (1000+ posts)

Thu Jul-03-08 04:08 PM Response to Reply #4

12. It's a political CLUSTER F. Are you kidding me?

He's going to be painted as a flip-flopper on the CORE ISSUE of his campaign. What. The. F?

Edited for language. To the rabid left, Iraq is STILL the core issue of the campaign. However, what these folks do not understand is that the average Joe and Jane Voter has gotten beyond Iraq. They see $4.00 a gallon gas and the cost of goods and food and services that have gone up as a result of $4.50 a gallon diesel fuel and they see how it is hitting their pocketbook and it is a simple thing for them. To quote the 42nd President....."IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!" As the cost of feeding and caring for their families go up, as they are faced with falling housing values and the very real possibility that they could lose their homes, the voters are looking for candidates that are discussing this very important issue. That is where Senator McCain has stepped into the gap. His "Lexington Project" was the type of bold step forward that the people of America are looking for. The House Republican Caucus followed with their own plan to expand domestic oil production, in part led by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland.

Senator Obama is changing his position fast and furious on a number of issues. Sometimes so fast that his senior advisers can't keep up with him. It has gotten so bad that even his supporters in the NY Times are commenting on it. This is not going to be good for the Obama campaign because he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If he placates the far left, he loses the center and the more he tacks to the center, the more he is losing his base on the far left. He can not win with only one of the two and therein lies his trouble...the two are (for now) mutually exclusive. A drift either way is costly to him.

What was once called the "Dog Days" of summer(going into the convention) could become a political junkies paradise. It will be entertaining to see what happens in the next few days as news of this "refined" policy stance spreads.....

Pass the popcorn.

UPDATE: Whiplash indeed. In 5 short hours Sen. Obama started to backtrack. Even more fun was this quote.

In a second, quickly-scheduled press availability, the Senator insists his position on Iraq has not changed.

“I intend to end this war… That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.”

Though he also says:

“I have always reserved the right to do what’s best for America’s national interest… I would be a poor commander-in-chief if I didn’t take facts on the ground into account.”

You have to love two distinct policy positions in one presser.

UPDATE #2: Apparently I am not the only one who thinks that "Whiplash" is the appropriate term for Obama's changes. When it's that obvious....

Updates

My regular Minnesota readers no doubt know that I have finally completed my move to Utah and I am starting to pick up Utah readers - especially as I write more and more about politics here in my new home. So just to explain to everyone, I will be (at least for this election cycle) be writing about politics in BOTH states. I still have my sources in Minnesota who I am in constant contact with and I will be starting to make contacts here in Utah in the coming months.

So to my conservative friends in Minnesota - you will get a taste of what life in a red state is like and to my new soon to be friends in Utah - you will get a taste of blue state life as a reminder of why you don't EVER want to go down that road.

I hope you all keep stopping by to get your daily fix of political insight from a Lady's point of view.

Why He Lost

I have been meaning to post on this since Monday, but with all of the breaking news in the MN AG story, it just got put on the back burner.

Ever since Chris Cannon's primary loss last Tuesday, the local media has been wracking their brains trying to figure out the answer to a simple one word question...WHY? Why did Chris Cannon lose? Sunday's Salt Lake Tribune attempts (but falls short) to answer that question.

In the aftermath of Rep. Chris Cannon's primary defeat, many pundits, activists and news stories have declared that Cannon's moderate immigration stance cost him a seventh term in Congress.
A vocal crew clamored to label it an anti-undocumented immigration victory.
"Cannon's pro-amnesty crown finally became an albatross," NumbersUSA Executive Director Roy Beck wrote supporters. "No amount of advertising claiming that blue is red and that amnesties are not amnesties apparently could fool the voters this time."
The election "was, without a doubt, the greatest electoral victory of the immigration-control movement," proclaimed a story in the conservative newsletter Human Events.
And Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican who has made a crusade of opposing undocumented immigration, said Cannon's loss "sends a very clear message."
Not so fast.

The article then goes on to talk about all of the different people who voted for Chaffetz as opposed to voting for Cannon. Pro and anti amnesty voters voted for Chaffetz so contrary to more well read voices, Cannon's amnesty stance was NOT the reason for his defeat.

I think that the reason for Cannon's defeat is a much simpler one. Rather than accept the will of the people, Cannon is making excuse after excuse for his loss.

"The people who voted wouldn't have filled Edwards Stadium" — the football stadium at Brigham Young University — said Cannon. He added that now that he is free from elective politics he will be talking more candidly about what is going on in Utah and America.

"Clearly there are some out there who hate me. And every stinking one of them voted" on Tuesday, Cannon joked. Many who supported him "went to the lake" on vacation. Cannon said he had the best voter ID program of all his campaigns this year. "But for whatever reason, people didn't vote."

This may be part of the reason. It is a known fact here in Utah that Chaffetz worked hard to get his people to the polls. Obviously Rep. Cannon didn't. Another excuse that he offered up I find to be the most offensive.

While not anticipating he will run for office again, Cannon said he will keep his campaign account going, if only to try to bring "more reasonable people" into Utah GOP politics.
"I'm going to make a serious effort to use the Internet" and other means to get grass-roots Republicans more involved in GOP mass meetings — "to stand against the bulwark" of the "harsh, boorish people" who are now being elected delegates and other party leaders.

Emphasis mine. Now while I will grant you that many of the neophytes that came to the caucuses this year may not have known all of the "proper" and "politically correct" ways that things are done in the local sorority, but this is not high school or college Mr. Cannon, this is politics.

Mr. Cannon's remarks about the "people" are the real tell about why he lost. Mr. Cannon is afflicted with the same "disease" that people like MN State Rep. Ron Erhardt are...the impression that the legislative seat that they are blessed to hold is somehow theirs by right of ownership. We, the people, do NOT work for you, Mr. Cannon (and Mr. Erhardt)...you work for the people and if the people of your district do not approve of the job you are doing, they have every right under the sun to replace you.

Those people also include the members of your party...the grassroots. You remember us right? The ones that work to get you elected?????

UPDATE: Welcome Utah readers. Please read this post and come back often for more insight into Minnesota politics and opinions (from a new resident) on Utah politics.

He Said - He Said

Eric Black and MinnPost have been the source of most of the coverage into the various scandals in the MN Attorney General's office. Black's coverage has been quite fair, factual and devoid of any personal preference toward either side in the story. In todays story, Black can't help letting a little snark in - and honestly I don't blame him.

As a matter of written policy, Mr. Hatch doesn't speak to me and he extended the same courtesy to my esteemed MinnPost colleague G.R. Anderson who covered the Monday meeting at which Legislative Auditor James Nobles presented the results of his recent review of the attorney general's office and some of the alleged improprieties.

As you may recall, former AG Hatch does not deign to talk to mere bloggers - even those with a career as storied as Mr. Black. After all, we all know bloggers have an agenda....unlike former AG Hatch.....

But Mr. Hatch's media relations policies do allow him to publicly impugn the motives of those who question his conduct and possibly to do so without necessarily limiting himself to the facts of the matter.

To be precise: Rep. Simon did ask some questions of Nobles at the Monday meeting about whether everything under Mr. Hatch was always done strictly according to Hoyle.

And Mr. Hatch, in explaining things to MPR's excellent Tim Pugmire, did say that Rep. Simon was motivated by revenge because he "lost his job in the attorney general's office."

I may not agree with Rep. Simon's stands on most issues however I have it on very good authority (from someone who works with him) that this is not Rep. Simon's MO. If anything, he is in a better position as a legislator than a mere assistant AG. That is not to say that this kind of "hit" isn't former AG Hatch's MO. As my dear friend Gary pointed out earlier today, not only is former AG Hatch very adept at playing political hardball - he thrives on it. This was a pre-emptive strike on a legislator who is just trying to do his job....looking out for the citizens of Minnesota. It is something that maybe the current and former AG's should have kept in mind in their day to day office dealings.

It's just a thought.

More Bad News for AG Swanson

The Legislative Audit Commission met yesterday to discuss Legislative Auditor Jim Noble's look into the Attorney Generals office. What started as a look into employer/employee relations has turned into something deeper and potentially more serious for both AG Swanson and former AG Mike Hatch. While the initial reporting on the audit was quick to claim vindication for AG Swanson (which the report really didn't do) because the employer/employee relations weren't in the LA's perview, the report did uncover financial misdealings which ARE under the LA's perview.

Attorney General Lori Swanson and her predecessor, Mike Hatch, have come under question for their role in a court settlement that diverted money to a nonprofit whose political wing endorsed Hatch's bid for governor.

The Minnesota Independent reports on even larger allegations raised.

Workers in the Minnesota Attorney General’s office have alleged under oath that current AG Lori Swanson and her predecessor, Mike Hatch, may have illegally diverted federal monies meant to investigate Medicaid fraud, and that a legal settlement negotiated by Swanson and Hatch financially benefited a nonprofit organization that later endorsed Hatch’s campaign for governor.

Diversion of funds to private political entities by the office that is supposed to protect the state from that...lovely. What is even more lovely is that settlement in question was specifically negotiated to keep the money out of state coffers and routed to an organization that was friendly to then AG Hatch!

The $1 apparently knocked off the Capital One Bank settlement to allow then-Attorney General Mike Hatch to direct the proceeds speaks volumes.

For anyone who missed it, the AG's Office settled a lawsuit against the well-known credit card issuer in 2006 for an oddly precise $749,999. Had the case settled for a dollar more, the money would have gone into the general fund for the Legislature to distribute. Because it fell a hair's breadth beneath the $750,000 threshold, Hatch was able to direct the distribution of two-third of the proceeds to two nonprofits -- $250,000 to the Legal Aid Society (a good cause, but also a politically popular one) and $249,999 to the community action group ACORN (which reportedly later endorsed Hatch in his gubernatorial bid). The other third of the settlement went to the state to cover the costs of investigation.

Emphasis mine. The AG's office - led by then AG Hatch and his chief lieutenant Swanson - used the power of his office to reward political cronies. It confirms what many had suspected about the former AG.

Further investigations into the misuse of federal funds and the Capital One settlement will be part of the next normal annual review of the AG's office, scheduled for early next year. In the meantime, LA Nobles suggested that the legislature provide civil service protection to the AG office employees in lieu of the unionization. This seems like a common sense compromise to a very sticky situation.

Phoning It In

Q Comp is Governor Pawlenty's plan for merit based teachers pay. Because the plan rewards excellence in the workplace and (as a result) no bonuses to employees that do not meet the criteria of doing your job well, the teachers union has been dead set against Q Comp.

Well the state of Utah has implemented a plan similar to Q Comp. The reaction, from media and teachers alike, has been anything BUT similar to the reaction to Q Comp.

Deseret Morning News:

. . . the current 'one size fits all' approach doesn't offer enough incentive. It's time teachers who are worth their weight in gold get paid that gold. Just as it's time for teachers who simply 'phone it in' to be bucked from the horse so true professionals can run the show.

Salt Lake Tribune:
For the first time, Utah school districts are seriously considering how they can distribute bonuses or pay raises to teachers based on how well they do their jobs.

. . . That would benefit not only dedicated, talented teachers but also their students, as mediocre teachers would sharpen their skills in order to earn more money.

The Salt Lake Trib takes it one step further.

. . . [But] there are two myths that must be dispelled before merit systems can be effective. The first is that there are no mediocre or poor teachers in our schools. The second is that, even if there were, there is no way to differentiate between them and the excellent teachers. Both these myths have been used by teacher association leaders to undermine past efforts to adopt effective merit-pay plans.

These are the myths that Education Minnesota and their related teachers unions have long perpetuated. The Salt Lake Trib is right - merit pay for teachers will IMPROVE the system. It would make schools better for all children - regardless of what district they are in. The time has come to quit protecting the teachers that are just "phoning it in". Our children deserve better than this.

No We Can't

Democrats up and down the ticket have all echoed the talking point (taken directly from the TOP of the ticket) "We can't drill our way out of this oil crisis". With that comment in mind I would like to ask a question. If we can't fix the current situation with oil, how are we supposed to fix global warming?

As I said before, IF we take a well rounded approach to the problem (as has been proposed by Republicans like Rep. Michelle Bachmann) we can solve it. That means we need to look at alternative energy sources AND nuclear energy AND clean coal AND domestic oil production. That is the only way that we will ever be truly energy independent. Yes there is going to be a lot of innovation from the market, but the innovation is already there in some places.

Sadly for America, the Democrats don't think that the innovation will happen and therefore they echo the top of their ticket in saying "NO WE CAN'T!"

Trouble In Paradise

In a really lame attempt to bail out their guy, Democrats across the country are trying to paint Senator John McCain with the same (or is it McSame?) tax dodging brush that candidate Al Franken was tarred with.

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) criticized his DFL opponent Al Franken when Al admitted to paying his taxes in MN and NY when they should have been spread over MN, NY and 17 other states. Al then corrected the problem. But now it comes to light that the Republican Presidential candidate Grandpa McSame owes back taxes on a California condo:

Newsweek is set to publish a highly embarrassing report on Sen. John McCain, revealing that the McCains have failed to pay taxes on their beach-front condo in La Jolla, California, for the last four years and are currently in default, The Huffington Post has learned.

Under California law, once a residential property is in default for five years, it can be sold at a tax sale to recover the unpaid taxes for the taxpayers.
(Huffington Post)

Will Norm condemn Grandpa McSame as he did Al?

There is one teeny, tiny problem with that theory E......Senator McCain has NO CONTROL over Mrs. McCain's property, thanks to a nice little pre-nuptial agreement that he signed. Contrary to Senator McCain, Al Franken was CEO and COO of his company....AL WAS the Company where Sen. McCain has no say in the matter.

Meanwhile, MPR (of all places) just released a poll that shows that Angry Al, LOOSES many of the "moderate" voters that intend to vote for Senator Obama. Things are must be really bad for Al back in Minnesota if that is the case.

Seriously - if this is all the left can come up with (on Senator McCain) they are in real trouble. Maybe things are not going to be as bad for the Republic as some think it will be. Time will tell I suppose.

Unreal

On one hand, I really expected this editorial to come out of the Star Tribune. On the other, I can't say that I am all that surprised that it came out of the Chicago Tribune.

Repeal the 2nd Amendment

No, we don't suppose that's going to happen any time soon. But it should.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn't, and it isn't. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias.

Emphasis mine......So according to the Tribune editors, the 2nd Amendment was designed to do this (HT Capt Ed)?????

Leaked minutes of the Joint Operations Command (JOC), which has orchestrated the violence since Mugabe lost a first round of voting in March, revealed that it is willing to wipe out opposition supporters.

A 10,000-strong youth militia loyal to the Zanu-PF has been created to enforce its wishes in case regular army units refuse, according to Zimbabwean human rights agencies.

No, the Founding Fathers understood the abuses that dictatorial government could impose on the people....many of them lived it. They also understood the need for personal and community defense - thus the "well regulated militia" preface. My Chicago area public school taught me that....

Maybe the Tribune editors need to go back to high school and take a basic American History class. They just might learn something...

Truthful Dialog?

Rep. Sandy Wollschlager (DFL-Cannon Falls) had a letter in the Red Wing Republican Eagle this week in response to a previous letter to the editor.

I would like to comment on John Adams recent letter to the editor (R-E, June 20) regarding my work on tax relief in the Minnesota Legislature.

While I appreciate Mr. Adams participation in the opinion section of the newspaper, he does a disservice to readers when he uses this forum to confuse and mislead.

Rep. Wollschlager then goes on to completely mislead the Republican Eagle readers on the tax bill that she "worked" so hard for.

She goes on to talk about the $23m in tax "relief" to homeowners. Yet she doesn't talk about the increase in taxes to anyone who buys a can of paint in Minnesota or whose sales taxes were going up due to the Transit Funding Bill or the thousands of teen-agers who will not get summer jobs this year because of additional taxes (including an increase in the minimum wage) on those that employ them or the increased taxes on military wages and social security income or the increases in our utility rates...the list goes on and on. Most of these tax increases I covered in my multiple live blog posts on the goings on in the Minnesota legislature this past session.

I agree with Rep. Wollschlager that a truthful debate is necessary. It's just a pity that the DFL can't engage in a truthful debate. Because if they did, they would be forced to admit that their "revenue neutral" tax bill was anything but...

There Are No Winners Here

This is one of those stories where no one comes out looking "good".

LONG PRAIRIE, Minn. – The legal question in the battle between Adam Race and the Church of St. Joseph is not about the rights of an autistic child, church authority or freedom of religion.

The issue, according to Todd County District Court Judge Sally Ireland Robertson, is whether the noises and behaviors 13-year-old Adam Race displayed in church meet the legal definition of harassment.

For those of you who are not aware of the story, 13 year old Adam is autistic. According to parish officials at the Church of St. Joseph, Adam is a threat to fellow parishioners....so much so that the church filed for (and received) a restraining order to keep Adam out of church. According to church officials, Adam struck a child during Mass and bolted from Mass many times - including one time where he got into and managed to start another parishioners car!

Parenting a child like Adam is difficult to say the least. My brother in law is Down Syndrome and Autistic. We love him dearly but at 6 foot tall and 200+ pounds (like Adam) he can not only be a danger to himself, he is a danger to others. He does not mean to be, but when you have such childish impulses trapped in an adults body, it happens. My mother and father in law had their hands full raising him, but they did. However, the day came when (due to advanced age) my mother and father in law could no longer keep control of this dear young man and they made the hard decision to put him in a situation where he would not be a danger to himself and others.

Which leads us back to Adam's story. As much as I know it is going to break Mrs. Race's heart, if she can not control Adam, then she either needs to get assistance or she needs to make the hard decision to put Adam in a situation where he is not a threat to others.

Mrs. Race has a point in that Adam's actions probably do not meet up to the legal definition of "harassment" but he is a disruption to others and Mrs. Race is not doing herself, Adam or her fellow parishioners any favors by continuing to allow Adam's ill behavior to continue unchecked. At some point, the priest needs to step in (as this one did) and take control of a situation that Mrs. Race refused to do. While it is not his place to "discipline" Adam, it was his place to take control of the safety of the people in his "care". Since Mrs. Race refused to step up, the Priest did what he was forced to do. For everyone's sake - especially Adam - I hope that Mrs. Race drops this Quixotic quest and spends her time working with Adam to help him get the self control that is needed to sit in church.

Challengers CAN Win

The biggest story in Utah today has to be the story of Rep. Chris Cannon's primary defeat by a first time challenger.

Jason Chaffetz's promise to change Washington, starting with Rep. Chris Cannon, resonated with Republican voters, who ousted the six-term incumbent in a GOP primary Tuesday.
"We rocked the vote here in Utah and we rocked the Republican Party," Chaffetz told about 175 supporters gathered to celebrate the victory. "I think we've been given a mandate to return the Republican Party to its core conservative principles."
With 99 percent of the votes counted, Chaffetz led Cannon by about 20 points. Chaffetz now advances to face Democrat Bennion Spencer in November. The seat strongly favors Republicans.

Emphasis mine. Twenty points is a serious drubbing for any race - especially when the one getting drubbed is the incumbent. It also flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that you just can't challenge an incumbent legislator, even if you feel that he or she is no longer representing the district - as the voters of Utah's 3rd Congressional District resoundingly said yesterday.

The Cannon/Chaffetz race featured many of the same frustrations that voters (especially Republican voters) across the country have felt. Frustrations over illegal immigration, out of control federal spending, energy policy and a broken Republican Party were the hallmarks of the Chaffetz campaign. It must be stressed that Jason Chaffetz is a political newbie (at least when it comes to running for office himself). He was Chief of Staff for Utah Governor Huntsman so he had the policy formation experience but this was his first ever run for office. This is important. The voters of the 3rd district sent the Republican Party a very loud message. Chaffetz' victory yesterday is a victory for every Republican who is dis-satisfied with the direction the Party is going. He over came big name endorsements (President Bush and Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett all endorsed incumbent Cannon) and a 7-1 spending deficit to win. He beat the Party establishment resoundingly.

Chaffetz's victory yesterday should send shock waves through the Republican Party establishment - not only in DC but in all the state parties (big hint to my friends back in Minnesota). The base is NOT HAPPY with you and the way you are doing business. You are not representing the people and the time has come to either get back on track (representing the Party's core principles) or go home.

145 Who Get It

Earlier today, I wrote a rather long post on Energy policy and how a 4 pronged approach to energy cost relief is an absolute necessity. It seems like every politician out there (with the exception of Senators Coleman and McCain) gets one part of the prong. One of the more important prongs is that we absolutely must increase domestic oil production. Well today, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland challenged all 435 of his colleagues to sign a pledge to increase domestic oil production. Almost immediately 145 of his colleagues signed the pledge. This bi-partisan list (some Democrats DO GET the need) includes Minnesota's own Rep. John Kline and Michelle Bachmann!

If you look at the body of the petition, you see that Rep. Westmoreland (as well as Reps. Bachmann and Kline) gets the fact that a multiple pronged approach is necessary.

“Hundreds of thousands of Americans have signed petitions calling on Congress to increase U.S. oil supply to bring down prices. When constituents started calling me to say they had signed, I wanted a way for all Americans to know where their member of Congress stands on this issue. I created a ‘no-wiggle-room pledge’ that reads ‘I will vote to increase to U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans.’ It’s simple and it gets to the heart of the real solution. Yes, we need to conserve; yes, we need to develop alternative energy sources. But right now, we still need traditional energy and I want to put members of the House on record: Are you for helping American businesses and American families with their energy costs or not?

“More than 65 percent of Americans support more traditional energy exploration in this country. I’m saying: Explore offshore, open up U.S. lands and build more refineries. I encourage people all over this country will call their member of the House and encourage them to sign the Westmoreland petition to increase oil production. The petition is on the floor of the House during votes. Every congressional district is listed and we update our web site, www.house.gov/westmoreland regularly with everyone who has signed it.”

So to those of you in the remaining Minnesota districts - call your representatives and ask them to sign the Westmoreland petition. While you are at it, if you have not already signed a petition to add more domestic production, I would suggest that you sign here to let Congress and the President know how you feel about the energy issue.

UPDATE AND BUMP: Welcome all of you new readers who got here via Google searching the petition. Poke around and come back as often as you can! There are now 183 Congresspeople who are listening to We The People on energy.

UPDATE #2 - Attention voters in Minnesota's 3rd Congressional District. Congressman Jim Ramsted (RINO - retiring) has refused to sign the petition. You should call his office and express your displeasure with his actions. Then take a few minutes to donate your time and money to his replacement, Erik Paulsen.