News From 91.3 KUWS
Lassa: She's own person, distancing herself from Obey
Story posted Friday at 3:33 p.m.
http://www.businessnorth.com/kuws.asp?RID=3584
9/11/2010
The leading Democrat in the race to replace Wisconsin Congressman Dave Obey is not planning to ask him to campaign for her if she wins Tuesday's primary. Mike Simonson reports from Superior.
Since deciding in May not to run for re-election after serving northern Wisconsin in the U.S. House since 1969, Obey won't be a center piece of State Senator Julie Lassa's campaign. Lassa says she appreciates Obey's service but will campaign apart from him.
"The page has now turned and we're beginning to write a new chapter and I'm hoping to be able to write that chapter with the people of this district to making sure they have someone who will be a strong and independent voice."
Lassa says she'll quote "clean up Washington" if she's elected in November. Republicans are blaming Obey as head of the House Appropriations Committee for running up the federal deficit. Meanwhile, Lassa's Democratic primary opponent Realtor Don Raihala of Superior says he doesn't see Obey as a liability.
"Absolutely not. Dave Obey is very popular. I mean you don't stay in office for 41 years without that kind of influence so, no he wouldn't be a liability."
This is Raihala's first run for office in Wisconsin.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Lassa Puts Positive Spin on Job Killer Known as Cap & Trade
There is no pretty way to disguise the planned energy policies and agendas of the Obama administration. No candidate would dare to campaign on the need for your energy costs to increase because it’s the right thing to do, however Julie Lassa is doing just that.
She talks about reducing the demand for fossil fuels and putting people to work in the clean energy field, but doesn’t it also mean that those employed in the ‘dirty’ energy field are also about to be reduced. Is she forgetting that dirty energy employs 1000’s in the seventh district of Wisconsin and many 100,000’s nationwide. I don’t believe those high paying union workers in the coal and oil industries are comforted knowing that last year a bill was passed extending unemployment to three years for jobs lost to green energy.
It is an inarguable truth that the passage of global warming legislation kills dirty energy jobs and increases the costs of the energies you consume; what is debatable is just by how much. Wisconsin’s only oil refinery, Murphy Oil, is in Superior and their website, Fuel America, has this to say about it:
If you are one of the many hard-working Americans who depend on their cars to get to work, school and home, you will shoulder the lion’s share of the cost of a climate change bill being considered in Congress.
The Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454) and Boxer-Kerry global warming bills would increase energy costs, increase U.S. reliance on imported energy, reduce economic output, and jeopardize American jobs at the worst possible time – when we are fighting to climb out of a severe recession. Higher energy prices cause a ripple effect throughout our economy, increasing the costs of goods and services we all use and need
The same sentiments can be said about affordable electricity. In a popular interview, found on the internet, President Obama says, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”. It’s bad enough being in a recession, now we have to worry about paying for our increased energy bills.
Growing up on a farm, Julie Lassa should know that farmers despise high diesel prices. As a matter of fact, I would have to say the vast majority of Wisconsinites are not welcoming four dollar gasoline or higher electricity rates with open arms because of this type of legislation.
This can’t possibly be what the majority of the citizens of the United States want, is it?
Since the House version of Cap and Trade is hung up in the Senate, it is your duty to tell Russ Feingold, with your vote, that you don’t want this type of bill. When the bill gets back to the House for tweaking make sure that your next elected Representative has the courage to squash it out.
She talks about reducing the demand for fossil fuels and putting people to work in the clean energy field, but doesn’t it also mean that those employed in the ‘dirty’ energy field are also about to be reduced. Is she forgetting that dirty energy employs 1000’s in the seventh district of Wisconsin and many 100,000’s nationwide. I don’t believe those high paying union workers in the coal and oil industries are comforted knowing that last year a bill was passed extending unemployment to three years for jobs lost to green energy.
It is an inarguable truth that the passage of global warming legislation kills dirty energy jobs and increases the costs of the energies you consume; what is debatable is just by how much. Wisconsin’s only oil refinery, Murphy Oil, is in Superior and their website, Fuel America, has this to say about it:
If you are one of the many hard-working Americans who depend on their cars to get to work, school and home, you will shoulder the lion’s share of the cost of a climate change bill being considered in Congress.
The Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454) and Boxer-Kerry global warming bills would increase energy costs, increase U.S. reliance on imported energy, reduce economic output, and jeopardize American jobs at the worst possible time – when we are fighting to climb out of a severe recession. Higher energy prices cause a ripple effect throughout our economy, increasing the costs of goods and services we all use and need
The same sentiments can be said about affordable electricity. In a popular interview, found on the internet, President Obama says, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”. It’s bad enough being in a recession, now we have to worry about paying for our increased energy bills.
Growing up on a farm, Julie Lassa should know that farmers despise high diesel prices. As a matter of fact, I would have to say the vast majority of Wisconsinites are not welcoming four dollar gasoline or higher electricity rates with open arms because of this type of legislation.
This can’t possibly be what the majority of the citizens of the United States want, is it?
Since the House version of Cap and Trade is hung up in the Senate, it is your duty to tell Russ Feingold, with your vote, that you don’t want this type of bill. When the bill gets back to the House for tweaking make sure that your next elected Representative has the courage to squash it out.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Cap and Trade Hurts Superior [everyone]
Cap & Trade Hurts Superior
For decades oil and coal have supported Superior with high paying jobs and tax revenues. Now is the time to support them with your vote this election cycle. The future success of the planned oil refinery expansion and the continued success of regional coal supplier Midwest Energy are now in the hands of the voter. Simply put, if you want gasoline and electricity rates to remain relatively affordable, vote for a candidate that opposes the Cap and Trade of carbon emissions.
It makes very little sense for the United States to take on the world’s perceived problems by saddling its citizens with outrageous energy taxes while enormous countries like China, Russia, and India are unwilling to participate on the same scale. Even more preposterous is to implement these types of policies when our country is at its most trying point of economic recovery.
Both Superior energy companies share similar viewpoints on Cap and Trade, but Murphy Oil’s viewpoint is more public and direct to the point as stated in the following two paragraphs from its fuel America website, Stand With Us Against Higher Fuel Prices:
If you are one of the many hard-working Americans who depend on their cars to get to work, school and home, you will shoulder the lion’s share of the cost of a climate change bills being considered in Congress.
The Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454) and Boxer-Kerry global warming bills would increase energy costs, increase U.S. reliance on imported energy, reduce economic output, and jeopardize American jobs at the worst possible time – when we are fighting to climb out of a severe recession. Higher energy prices cause a ripple effect throughout our economy, increasing the costs of goods and services we all use and need.
Leaders in both political parties agree on the bills damaging effects, yet differ on their support. President Obama said “under my plan of a Cap and Trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”, yet fully supports its implementation. John Boehner, House minority leader, calls it “a punishing tax on American companies and consumers”.
With passage of Cap and Trade legislation looming on the horizon and its fine regulatory details hidden in thousands of pages of text creating an air of uncertainty; it is no wonder that companies are holding their cash reserves rather than expanding their workforce or facilities.
Julie Lassa and Russ Feingold openly support a Cap and Trade system that will ultimately result in drastic cost increases of the energies you consume. Use your vote this fall to let them know that cap and trade not only hurts Superior, but the entire recovery of the United States.
For decades oil and coal have supported Superior with high paying jobs and tax revenues. Now is the time to support them with your vote this election cycle. The future success of the planned oil refinery expansion and the continued success of regional coal supplier Midwest Energy are now in the hands of the voter. Simply put, if you want gasoline and electricity rates to remain relatively affordable, vote for a candidate that opposes the Cap and Trade of carbon emissions.
It makes very little sense for the United States to take on the world’s perceived problems by saddling its citizens with outrageous energy taxes while enormous countries like China, Russia, and India are unwilling to participate on the same scale. Even more preposterous is to implement these types of policies when our country is at its most trying point of economic recovery.
Both Superior energy companies share similar viewpoints on Cap and Trade, but Murphy Oil’s viewpoint is more public and direct to the point as stated in the following two paragraphs from its fuel America website, Stand With Us Against Higher Fuel Prices:
If you are one of the many hard-working Americans who depend on their cars to get to work, school and home, you will shoulder the lion’s share of the cost of a climate change bills being considered in Congress.
The Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454) and Boxer-Kerry global warming bills would increase energy costs, increase U.S. reliance on imported energy, reduce economic output, and jeopardize American jobs at the worst possible time – when we are fighting to climb out of a severe recession. Higher energy prices cause a ripple effect throughout our economy, increasing the costs of goods and services we all use and need.
Leaders in both political parties agree on the bills damaging effects, yet differ on their support. President Obama said “under my plan of a Cap and Trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”, yet fully supports its implementation. John Boehner, House minority leader, calls it “a punishing tax on American companies and consumers”.
With passage of Cap and Trade legislation looming on the horizon and its fine regulatory details hidden in thousands of pages of text creating an air of uncertainty; it is no wonder that companies are holding their cash reserves rather than expanding their workforce or facilities.
Julie Lassa and Russ Feingold openly support a Cap and Trade system that will ultimately result in drastic cost increases of the energies you consume. Use your vote this fall to let them know that cap and trade not only hurts Superior, but the entire recovery of the United States.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
The first interviews, given separately, but on the same show, took place today with Don Raihala and Julie Lassa. The Joy Cardin show on WPR starts with a tongue lashing by a KUWS reporter soured by not getting the interview. Julie Lassa was generous enough to give a 15 minute interview from 7:15-7:30 and Don Raihala finished the hour by giving a 30 minute interview from 7:30-8:00.
The link to show #100805B is downloadable and can be found at:
wpr.org/webcasting/audioarchives/_display.cfm?Code=jca
You make the call. 12 years of Wisconsin government service vs. the last minute filer.
For the record: Mike at KUWS has never called or left a message, nor has he ever sent an email and yes he did cry to my dad. As mentioned in the interview, it made no sense to do interviews and send people to a website that nobody could find or had my written issues up yet, we had just gotten indexed by google a little more than a week ago.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Dave Obey's retirement opens abortion debate
The battle for Wisconsin's 7th district congressional seat, long held by retiring Dave Obey, may come down to a vote on abortion. Since there is virtually no danger of President Obama signing any form of pro-life legislation, the typical election arguments will focus on the abortion funding language included in the health care law.
Don Raihala, a Democrat candidate for U.S. Congress, wants people to know that health care is just one of several House bills he would repeal or not fund were he to be elected to office. Raihala states, "The 2000 page health care law does include abortion funding language. If Congress did not want these abortion options included, then it should have been entirely left out."
The health care law was very specific in including language that allows for tax payer funds to be used for abortion options in government health plans. The law also purposely excluded the Hyde Amendment, which historically has been attached to bills that concern health and human welfare and prevents the use of federal funds on abortion.
As recently as two weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provided $160 million to Pennsylvania to set up a high risk insurance pool with plans that have access to federally funded abortion coverage. This already appears to be circumventing the executive order that President Obama issued to help convince pro-life legislators into signing. Many believe the executive order simply shuffles around funds and offers little protection. Since it is not law, the President may rescind it at any time.
Raihala states, "You're getting a large number of moderates that previously looked the other way when it came to abortion. Now that they see the reality of their tax dollars directly funding abortion, their voting rationale may change.
That reality doesn't add up well for the other primary contender, Democratic Party chosen candidate, Julie Lassa. She recently received the endorsement of pro-choice advocate group Emily's List.
Raihala concludes, "This election needs to be about more than just the typical empty promises, false hopes and emotional buzz words. It needs to be about the facts and truths about what is taking place in Washington and where our representatives are leading our nation." As part of his focus on truth, Raihala includes the executive order along with several other controversial items on his campaign website www.donforcongress.com.
Thanks to Steve McConkey at www.christianinvestigator.com for the great write up.
Don Raihala, a Democrat candidate for U.S. Congress, wants people to know that health care is just one of several House bills he would repeal or not fund were he to be elected to office. Raihala states, "The 2000 page health care law does include abortion funding language. If Congress did not want these abortion options included, then it should have been entirely left out."
The health care law was very specific in including language that allows for tax payer funds to be used for abortion options in government health plans. The law also purposely excluded the Hyde Amendment, which historically has been attached to bills that concern health and human welfare and prevents the use of federal funds on abortion.
As recently as two weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provided $160 million to Pennsylvania to set up a high risk insurance pool with plans that have access to federally funded abortion coverage. This already appears to be circumventing the executive order that President Obama issued to help convince pro-life legislators into signing. Many believe the executive order simply shuffles around funds and offers little protection. Since it is not law, the President may rescind it at any time.
Raihala states, "You're getting a large number of moderates that previously looked the other way when it came to abortion. Now that they see the reality of their tax dollars directly funding abortion, their voting rationale may change.
That reality doesn't add up well for the other primary contender, Democratic Party chosen candidate, Julie Lassa. She recently received the endorsement of pro-choice advocate group Emily's List.
Raihala concludes, "This election needs to be about more than just the typical empty promises, false hopes and emotional buzz words. It needs to be about the facts and truths about what is taking place in Washington and where our representatives are leading our nation." As part of his focus on truth, Raihala includes the executive order along with several other controversial items on his campaign website www.donforcongress.com.
Thanks to Steve McConkey at www.christianinvestigator.com for the great write up.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Welcoming remarks
I want to first thank you all that have managed to find this blog or for that matter any information on the internet on myself and my run for U.S. Congress. It has definitely been an extreme struggle, full of stress and anxiety, to please the internet monarchs and make it possible for myself to be search worthy. Nonetheless, we shall eventually prevail and overcome this debacle and start campaigning on an even playing field.
As mentioned in my website, the national debt will be the primary focal point of my campaign. It is such a monstrous problem that it encompasses and hinders literally all governmental decision making progress or at the very least it should. It should not be treated as an afterthought. When I read news stories about how the government is borrowing 41 cents out of every dollar it spends, my stomach churns. I ask myself how in the world can this possibly be going on. How can this not be addressed at every moment on every issue. This is the real issue!
The national debt is like being covered in a big wet blanket. We need to recognize it's on us, we need to admit that it's uncomfortable, and we need to be willing to take the steps to get it off of us.
On February 4, 2010 the House of Representatives voted 217-212 to raise the national debt ceiling $1.9 trillion, from 12.4 trillion to 14.3 trillion dollars. This is a cap that realistically will be reached, based on current spending levels, sometime early next year. There are some major spending decisions that will need to be made in order to end this endless spiral to economic disaster. The biggest current contributors being the two military conflicts and seemingly endless stimulus and bailout spending must come to an end. I, as your next Congressman, will vote not to increase the current debt ceiling and start dealing with the problems everyone seems to be avoiding. We simply cannot continue on this path of economic destruction.
As mentioned in my website, the national debt will be the primary focal point of my campaign. It is such a monstrous problem that it encompasses and hinders literally all governmental decision making progress or at the very least it should. It should not be treated as an afterthought. When I read news stories about how the government is borrowing 41 cents out of every dollar it spends, my stomach churns. I ask myself how in the world can this possibly be going on. How can this not be addressed at every moment on every issue. This is the real issue!
The national debt is like being covered in a big wet blanket. We need to recognize it's on us, we need to admit that it's uncomfortable, and we need to be willing to take the steps to get it off of us.
On February 4, 2010 the House of Representatives voted 217-212 to raise the national debt ceiling $1.9 trillion, from 12.4 trillion to 14.3 trillion dollars. This is a cap that realistically will be reached, based on current spending levels, sometime early next year. There are some major spending decisions that will need to be made in order to end this endless spiral to economic disaster. The biggest current contributors being the two military conflicts and seemingly endless stimulus and bailout spending must come to an end. I, as your next Congressman, will vote not to increase the current debt ceiling and start dealing with the problems everyone seems to be avoiding. We simply cannot continue on this path of economic destruction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)