Warren Comes Hope, Is That Enough

Washington-based group trying to draft Elizabeth Warren to run for US Senate said yesterday that it had raised $100,000, including $75,000 that would be available in cash, if the former Obama adviser decides to enter the Democratic primary race to challenge Republican Scott Brown next year.


The group, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, also said it has a list of more than 50,000 people who have pledged to volunteer tens of thousands of hours.


The group declined to release a list of donors and could not immediately say how many of its 4,500 donors live in Massachusetts.


Adam Green, the group’s cofounder, said the average contribution was $21.


“Our goal is on day one when she decides to run that she has a huge grass-roots army,’’ Green said.


Warren, a Harvard professor who designed the federal consumer protection agency that was created in the aftermath of the financial crisis, has been mulling a run for Senate since last month, when Obama declined to name her to a permanent post running the agency amid stiff Republican opposition.


There has been some debate among political commentators as to whether the grass-roots enthusiasm surrounding her potential candidacy would extend to a broader electorate.


Green said volunteers based in Massachusetts are reaching out to their neighbors to promote Warren’s candidacy.


There are currently six declared candidates in the Democratic field. Green said that if Warren decides not to run, the money can be used to support other progressive candidates.


Warren, untested as a political candidate, will have to win a long, contentious primary against at least seven others. She is up against history in a state that has never elected a female Senator or governor. And, most importantly, to win she’ll have to convince blue-collar, conservative Democrats — as well as independents who made up the majority of registered voters in 2010 — that she is in touch with their most pressing concerns.
She made an effort on that front Thursday in a column on a Massachusetts political blog. “Today, it’s harder than ever for middle class families in Massachusetts and across the country to get by,” Warren wrote at Blue Mass Group, all but declaring her strong consideration of a Senate bid.
“I left Washington, but I don’t plan to stop fighting for middle class families,” wrote Warren, who served as assistant to the president and special adviser to the secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until recently.
As she prepares for a bid, Warren is working with consultants Doug Rubin and Kyle Sullivan of Northwind Strategies, a person familiar with the matter told Roll Call. Both men have previously worked for Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D).
Massachusetts Democrats said serious questions remain about how effective a candidate she could be and whether she can win over voters in places such as Lowell, an old mill city of 100,000 people.
In 2008, Lowell residents voted 2-to-1 for Barack Obama. In a January 2010 special election, the city went 52 percent for Brown, then a little-known Republican state Senator.
State Sen. Eileen Donoghue (D), a former Lowell mayor whose district includes the city, said Democrats there are “on the more conservative side, working-class people, very much meat and potatoes.” She said Warren, whom she does not know well, would be a “tough sell” to her constituents.
“She may have a tough time relating and connecting to working-class Democrats,” Donoghue said.
Strategists said her academic background could be a political deterrent.
“I don’t think we beat Scott Brown with a Harvard professor,” said Scott Ferson, a Boston-based Democratic strategist who was Sen. Edward Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) press secretary in the 1990s.
“Elizabeth Warren is a very impressive person,” Democratic consultant Conor Yunits said. “I just don’t see how she gets elected.”
Last year Brown won because voters related to him. “They could look at him and say, ‘This guy gets me,’” he said. “I don’t see how they are going to look at a Harvard professor from Cambridge and say, ‘Yes I relate to this woman. She gets me.’”
But other Democratic consultants, including Mary Anne Marsh, said Warren was the perfect candidate to appeal to independents by saying she went to Washington to “protect the little guy” — and did.
“The Elizabeth Warren who could beat Scott Brown is the one who is going to say that she went down there and fought against the Senate that he became a part of, fought against the Republicans in the Senate that he votes with more than 90 percent of the time, fought to protect people from all the things that have turned this economy upside down,” Marsh said.
Brown adviser Eric Fehrnstrom told Roll Call in a statement that his boss is popular “because he’s viewed as a hard-working regular guy who is willing to reach across the aisle to solve problems and get things done.”
Brown has joined with Democrats on several key issues, including the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the financial reform measure that established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Warren worked to create.
Women have had a notoriously difficult time running and winning statewide office in Massachusetts. In addition to women losing statewide races, only four women have represented the Bay State in the U.S. House.
“I’m the only woman to serve in Congress from Massachusetts in 30 years,” Rep. Niki Tsongas (D) recently told Roll Call.
Should Warren prevail in a Sept. 18, 2012, primary, she must emerge with the money, energy, momentum and right political identity to go up against Brown with less than two months to go. And Democrats fret that Brown has already proved he can win a short general election campaign with a relatively undefined opponent.
Warren’s appeal to national Democrats and liberal activists raises expectations for her fundraising potential.
Because there is not yet a candidate for the state party to coalesce behind — and might not be for some time — the Massachusetts Democratic Party’s focus is on defining Brown.
State Democratic Party Chairman John Walsh told Roll Call that Democrats “screwed up” in 2010 by allowing Brown to define his race with the message that “Washington is a mess and Scott Brown has got a truck and coat.”
Walsh said that if the race is defined by that narrative again, “Scott Brown’s got a chance to win this thing.”
Brown beat state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) 52 percent to 47 percent in the 2010 special election, riding a wave of dissatisfaction with the economy and the political status quo and promising to oppose the Democrats’ plan to reform health insurance.
Walsh believes Democrats will unseat Brown if they paint him as anything but an independent voice.
“He’s handsome and he still has the truck and the coat,” Walsh said. “But when he asked you to give him a shot for two years down in Washington, now he’s coming back and asking you for a six-year extension, you got to really look at what he’s been doing there.”
Walsh argued that when Bay State residents take a thoughtful look at Brown’s record, they will find he is “voting against the interests of Massachusetts.”
For the next few months, Warren likely will focus her efforts on introducing herself to the Bay State as a political candidate for the first time.

Lowa straw poll, Recap and epilogue

Rick Perry is everything you'd want the Republican nominee to be.
That's just as true, by the way, if you're a Republican or a Democrat.
That's because if Perry wins the nomination, the 2012 election should become the showdown we've all been awaiting.
Every four years they tell us that the coming election will be most important presidential race of our lifetimes. It almost never is, of course. But this race — whatever else it turns out to be — will almost certainly be the most defining presidential campaign since Reagan-Carter.
We need some definition. The national divide grows ever deeper and the cable chatter grows ever louder. It's time we settle some things.
That's where Perry comes in. After the Ames straw poll — a weird Iowa affair wherein candidates literally pay for their votes — the Republican race seems to be down to three candidates, matching Perry against Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann.
What makes Perry stand out — besides his willingness to, say, call Social Security a Ponzi scheme — is that we've seen the other two.
I don't know if there is such a thing as a Mitt Romney time, but this clearly isn't it. He's a character from one of those time-travel movies, except he comes from no recognizable era, past or future. What I mean is, he looks human, but he makes you wonder if you can trust your own eyes.
In any case, he's not the anti- Obama figure that the moment demands. After all, he's the author of Obomneycare, as T-Paw, in his brief showing, so aptly put it. He's a (gasp!) semi-moderate in sheep's clothing — that is, if sheep used to wear ties and now wear easy-fit jeans. The Wall Street Journal calls Romney weak. In The New York Times, conservative columnist Ross Douthat says Romney has been running for five years without a single original idea. (Douthat, who wants Chris Christie to run, is no fan of Perry either, calling him the Republican equivalent of a cross between Al Franken and Nancy Pelosi.)
Romney says he's different from Perry, whom he calls a lifetime politician. Romney spent his formative years, of course, leveraging failing companies. Romney might have been a lifetime politician himself, though, if he hadn't kept losing elections.


Ron Paul: Moderate Loser.




Ron Paul
It is hard to describe second place as losing, but Paul supporters have been accustomed to winning straw polls. They pride themselves on being able to out-mobilize and out-organize everybody else. This time they got beat. The loss was close, which only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.


Feeding into the stereotype of Paul supporters as being heavily tilted toward dopey college students (a polite way of saying slackers), more than one of them complained that the line to vote was "too long."


So on the one hand Dr. Paul gets them all to turn out and wave signs and make speeches praising each other, but standing in line and actually voting is beyond their effort level.


Young people are known for not turning out, which explains why Dr. Paul has never won a presidential primary.


He had the largest and most passionate group of followers (practically a cult) in terms of tent size and activity, but too many of his supporters are better at the social gathering aspect of organizing rather than the nuts and bolts of getting the job done when it counts.


Tim Pawlenty: Big Loser. Out of the game.




Tim Pawlenty
Initially I had him marked down as "neutral: still in the game." This is why waiting a day beats rushing analysis to the Internet marketplace.


He finished a distant third, and the media declared it a disaster. He had a solid ground organization in the state, but he never got past the perception that he was "bland." This was always an unfair characterization of him. He is a good, decent, thoughtful man who was probably the biggest real threat to Mitt Romney. Yet the ascent of Michele Bachmann hurt him the most. If anyone but Bachmann wins the nomination, Pawlenty remains a solid choice for the Vice Presidential slot.


His tent was very impressive, and his supporters passed out ice cream and other goodies as fast as people scooped them up. His supporters were loyal, but not as intense as those of Bachmann or Paul. Pawlenty ran on "electability," which is code for "competence." Once again, for better or worse (I argue worse), ideology crushed competence. He may have been the best of the bunch and everybody's safe, alternative choice. That got crushed under the Bachmann tidal wave, which simply inspires burning passion among her supporters.


Ron Paul was not a threat to Pawlenty. Michele Bachmann was. As the winner, she will face intense scrutiny from a hostile media who despises her. This could have allowed Pawlenty to quietly and slowly rise under the radar as the caucuses near. Now we will never know.


Rick Santorum: Moderate winner.Still in the game. Santorum was outspent heavily because he does not have the resources of the other candidates. His supporters are fewer but share his burning passion and unequivocal stances on social issues.


Mike Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus in 2008, proving that social issues absolutely trump economics in this contest. While this gives Santorum an outside shot, Michele Bachmann also has solid credentials on these issues. If she stumbles under the coming media destruction campaign, he could rise.




Rick Santorum and Herman Cain
Herman Cain: Loser. He and Santorum really both needed that fourth place slot, and Santorum snagged it. Cain had a packed tent that was field with volunteers serving Godfather's Pizza.


Outside the tent was a beanbag toss for people to play while they waited. The speeches had people cheering, but the biggest knock on the Cain campaign is that people love his speeches without it translating into votes.


The speeches on this day were just as good, and the vote results simply were not.


The "Cainiacs" love his business record, but losing to Santorum clearly shows that social issues rule at this event. Social issue voters, particularly those activists opposed to abortion, will stand in line in for hours in any weather to vote. They are committed, and that trumps the enthusiasm generated from great speeches. New Hampshire is a better fit for Cain.


Rick Perry: Neutral. The media initially called this a big win for Perry, given that he announced his candidacy the day of the event from South Carolina. He got over 700 write-in votes, and he did have some people there determined to get him some votes. The problem is that there were others who were angered at his not only deliberately snubbing the Iowa Straw Poll, but directly competing with it to try and marginalize it altogether.


Rudy Giuliani tried this strategy four years ago and it failed. Those who loathe the role Iowa plays want Perry to break the Iowa stranglehold. Those who like Iowa's role want Perry to be humbled.


Mitt Romney: Neutral. Romney is the frontrunner for the presidential nomination. Nothing has changed that. Bachmann can claim she is his main rival, and Perry will try to do the same. Perry's hard-edged Southern conservatism is not built for New Hampshire, but Perry will bank on Romney not being embraced in South Carolina.


A solid showing without even competing could have made Romney a big winner and cemented his status. Instead, all he did was not lose anything. When one is the frontrunner, breaking even is good enough. Had Ron Paul won it may have allowed Romney to diminish the entire event and further help himself. This reasoning angers the Paulbots, but the bottom line is they are the insurgent movement and Romney is the establishment. Until proven otherwise, the establishment is in charge. That is why it is called the establishment.


Newt Gingrich: Loser. Despite a solid performance in the debate, Gingrich was not expected to compete in the straw poll. Yet then he showed up anyway and gave a speech. So he did not have a tent or a ground organization, but he also could not say he skipped the event altogether like Romney did. Gingrich is banking on this event being seen as irrelevant. Yet if so, why show up at all?


Gingrich will remain in the game as long as he keeps shining in the debates. He is a national figure, so he is not as dependent on regional success as Pawlenty for example. Those who say his time is past do not watch the debates. So while he lost at this event, he is not out of this race by a long shot.


Jon Huntsman: Loser. Nobody knows why he is running. He still has not told us. His debate performance was uninspiring, and he skipped the straw poll. Given that his strategy, if one can call it that, is to be the liberal Republican and media establishment darling, Huntsman was not a fit for this event. Iowa is about conservative activists.


Thaddeus McCotter: Loser. With Huntsman, people do not know why he is running. With McCotter, people do not even know he is running. He pointed out that his candidacy just got started in the weeks before the Straw Poll, but he spent a decent amount of money to earn 35 votes.


Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer, and Fred Karger are also running for president. Johnson represents the stoners, Karger the pro-gay marriage supporters, and Roemer... well... somebody.


Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin are the last two undeclared potential candidates. Mayor Giuliani did not hurt or help himself because his moderate stance on some social issues fits better in New Hampshire. He has a national presence, although bypassing Iowa last time hurt him.


As for Governor Palin, she is still a rock star. She lit up the Iowa State Fair more than anybody else already in the race. Even Ron Paul cannot match the combination of loyalty, intensity, and sheer love that Palin brings out in her supporters. The normal rules of politics simply do not apply to her. She can enter the race whenever she likes and instantly compete.


Also, unlike Perry, she did not burn Iowa bridges. While she has not made any announcements (prediction: she declines to run), at least she was on Iowa soil pressing the flesh.


With the Iowa Straw Poll over and done with this cycle, the Iowa Caucus is four months away.


I have not even announced my intentions yet, and I already have a chance to bypass Gary Johnson. I have the same number of delegates as Romney and Bachmann.

Ucore Hosts 2011 Alaska Rare Earth Conference

Ucore Rare Metals Inc. CA:UCU -6.25%  is pleased to announce the successful completion of the 2011 Alaskan Rare Earth Conference. The Ucore organized event was hosted at the Cape Fox Conference Center in Ketchikan, from August 6-9/2011, and was well attended by rare earth industry experts, lawmakers and community representatives. The four day event included a comprehensive tour of Ucore's Bokan Mountain Heavy Rare Earth Project on Prince of Wales Island, as well as round table discussions with Alaskan political leaders with a view to establishing the area as the leading American Heavy REE mining and production centre.


The 2011 event was well attended by political, industry, and academic representatives. In attendance were Senator Mark Begich (D-AK), as well as senior representatives from the offices of Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Alaskan Governor Sean Parnell. Also in attendance was a Japanese delegation which included Dr. Yasushi Watanabe, senior geologist with the Japanese Geological Survey and Dr.Tetsuishi Takagi of the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science & Technology; as well as Bradley Van Gosen, senior geologist with the United States Geological Survey. Academic representatives included Tom Schilling of MIT, Massachusetts, and Dr. Jaroslav Dostal of Saint Mary's University, Halifax. Industry representatives included Jack Lifton of Technology Metals Research, Chicago; Steven Borell, Executive Director of the Alaskan Miner's Association, Anchorage; as well as multiple representatives of the North American investment banking industry and the Alaskan commercial industrial community.


"We're impressed with the calibre of attendee at this Ucore organized event", said Jim McKenzie, President & CEO of Ucore. "The presence of the Alaskan Senatorial Delegation, senior representatives of the Japanese government, and delegates from Washington D.C. and elsewhere, shows the degree of interest in Southeast Alaska as an emerging American technology metals center. We wish to thank Senator Begich for his extensive meetings with conference attendees, as well participants Dr. Watanabe, Jack Lifton and Steve Borell for their excellent group presentations. A special thanks to Bob Weinstein, former Mayor of Ketchikan and representative of Senator Begich; Randy Ruaro, Deputy Chief of Staff to Governor Parnell; and the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development for helping to make this event a resounding success."


"I appreciated the opportunity to meet with Ucore and to learn firsthand about their project and the results of their exploration efforts to date," commented Senator Mark Begich. "We had a great discussion about the potential this project holds for the country's strategic position regarding rare earth supplies, as well as the huge opportunity it presents for jobs and economic development in Southern Southeast Alaska."


Ucore Rare Metals Inc. is a well-funded junior exploration company focused on establishing REE, uranium and other rare metal resources through exploration and property acquisition. With multiple projects across North America, Ucore's primary focus is the 100% owned Bokan - Dotson ridge REE property in Alaska. The Bokan - Dotson ridge REE project is located 60 km southwest of Ketchikan, Alaska and 140 km northwest of Prince Rupert, British Columbia and has direct ocean access to the western seaboard and the Pacific Rim, a significant advantage in expediting mine production and limiting the capital costs associated with mine construction.


The Bokan properties are located in an area reserved for sustainable resource development with an existing road network providing access to the main target areas. REE mineralization at the Bokan-Dotson ridge project occurs in a well-demarcated vein system related to a Mesozoic Bokan peralkaline granitic complex. However, a number of other occurrences of REE mineralization are also located within, or at the margins of the complex. Viewed in a geological and geophysical context, the Bokan complex is a distinctive circular structure and is highly prospective for rare earths deposits.


This press release includes certain statements that may be deemed "forward-looking statements". All statements in this release, other than statements of historical facts, that address future exploration drilling, exploration activities and events or developments that the Company expects, are forward looking statements. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those in forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include exploitation and exploration successes, continued availability of financing, and general economic, market or business conditions.