Rendezvous With Destiny

Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) editorial today in the Wall Street Journal, echoing much the same message Congressman Sensenbrenner delivered to Wisconsin Republicans at our state convention earlier this month, furthers the conservative belief that Republicans did not lose their majority because liberalism suddenly became popular, but rather due to the fact voters could not tell the difference between the two political parties.

Many Republicans are waiting for a consultant or party elder to come down from the mountain and, in Moses-like fashion, deliver an agenda and talking points on stone tablets. But the burning bush, so to speak, is delivering a blindingly simple message: Behave like Republicans.

Unfortunately, too many in our party are not yet ready to return to the path of limited government. Instead, we are being told our message must be deficient because, after all, we should be winning in certain areas just by being Republicans. Yet being a Republican isn’t good enough anymore. Voters are tired of buying a GOP package and finding a big-government liberal agenda inside. What we need is not new advertising, but truth in advertising.

Who is Tom Coburn? Well, he’s a first-term senator from Oklahoma, elected in a political comeback in 2004 after adhering to his self-imposed term limits pledge and leaving Congress after serving three terms, from 1994-2000. While in office the first time around, he aggravated Republican leadership to no end by expecting Republicans to act conservatively, and even led the coup against then-Speaker Newt Gingrich. A Bob Novak column during the 2004 race delivers the details:

Coburn’s problem is that he takes seriously the professed Republican agenda: limited government, entitlement reform and anti- abortion advocacy. He was a rare sincere GOP supporter of term limits, leaving the House after three terms as he promised to do. The result is scant support for Coburn from the Republican establishment, in the nation’s capital as well as Oklahoma. If elected to the Senate, he will do it largely on his own.

The Oklahoma Senate seat was safely Republican until Sen. Don Nickles surprised everybody by not seeking re-election. Nickles, Sen. James Inhofe and the state party apparatus got behind former Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys, popular with the insiders but not much of a candidate. Conservative Republican Rep. Ernest Istook wanted to run but was squeezed out. The only problem was that Humphreys looked like a loser against Rep. Brad Carson, a clever Democrat who votes with the liberals in the House two-thirds of the time but sounds like a moderate in Oklahoma.

All this dates back a decade when Dr. Coburn came to Washington as a foot soldier in the Gingrich Revolution. By July 1997, Coburn had concluded that Speaker Newt Gingrich was no revolutionary. He was a leader in the unsuccessful coup attempt to replace Gingrich with then Rep. Bill Paxon, now the only big- time Washington lobbyist who supports Coburn.

Coburn in the Senate can be expected to act much as he did in the House, when he constantly harassed the appropriators for spending the budget surplus. He would not follow the accepted freshman senator’s model of spending his first two years listening and waiting. From day one, he would join John McCain in upbraiding colleagues over their insatiable appetite for pork. He would push immediately for Social Security and Medicare reform. He would make clear his unhappiness over the way the Department of Health and Human Services has been run under Republican management led by Secretary Tommy Thompson.

So in 2004, Republican leadership would rather have lost a reliable seat, than have to deal with a senator with a conscience who expects his colleagues who campaign as conservatives, to vote that way once in office. Though he had virtually no establishment support and was the victim of a smear campaign by his Democratic opponent, Coburn won easily in both the primary and general elections and has been a conservative reform during his first term.

Coburn also takes direct aim at President Bush’s ‘compassionate conservative’ agenda:

While the K Street Project decimated our brand as the party of reform and limited government, compassionate conservatism convinced the American people to elect the party that was truly skilled at activist government: the Democrats.

Compassionate conservatism’s starting point had merit. The essential argument that Republicans should orient policy around how our ideas will affect the poor, the widow, the orphan, the forgotten and the “other” is indisputable – particularly for those who claim, as I do, to submit to an authority higher than government. Yet conservatives are conservatives because our policies promote deliverance from poverty rather than dependence on government.

Compassionate conservatism’s next step – its implicit claim that charity or compassion translates into a particular style of activist government involving massive spending increases and entitlement expansion – was its undoing. Common sense and the Scriptures show that true giving and compassion require sacrifice by the giver. This is why Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, not his neighbor’s possessions. Spending other people’s money is not compassionate.

When he endorsed McCain’s presidential run, I must admit I was surprised since McCain was to the left of Coburn on so many issues; his editorial explains his reason:

John McCain, for all his faults, is the one Republican candidate who can lead us through our wilderness. Mr. McCain is not running on a messianic platform or as a great healer of dysfunctional Republicans who refuse to help themselves. His humility is one of his great strengths. In his heart, he’s a soldier who sees one more hill to charge, one more mission to complete.

What are the odds Republican legislators give up their addiction to pork? I’m generally an optimist, but probably not so much in this case. Our friends over at FreedomWorks, have organized a No Earmarks Pledge for candidates and elected officials, to “personally support spending reform in Congress by refusing to seek, support, or enact earmarks...” Should be standard fare for Republicans, though I did not expect any Democrats to sign it, and wondered if even a majority of Republicans would sign on to the pledge.

In the Senate, a grand total of two have signed the pledge…TWO!? Of course, Coburn is one of them, and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint is the other. In the House, a whopping sum of 14 have sworn off the pork flavored kool-aid and committed to doing what their constituents expect of them. Fortunately, our state has two of the 14 that list, Jim Sensenbrenner and Paul Ryan, so those of us in Southeastern Wisconsin can be proud.

If anyone in Tom Petri’s district would like to contact him and inquire as to why he has turned his back on fiscal conservatism, please visit his website and let him know your thoughts here. Interestingly, on his website it lists the results of a recent constituent survey from WI-6, and one of the questions asked whether it would be a good idea to abolish earmarks. Almost all (88%) of the respondents replied ‘yes’ to completely getting rid of earmarks. I hope some of the 88% will encourage him to sign the pledge…

In 1977, as Americans dealt with double-digit unemployment, a prime rate of over 20 percent and 13 percent inflation, Congressman Jack Kemp and Senator Bill Roth refused to acquiesce to calls for tax increases, and instead, realizing it was the tax increases from 1965-1975 that had caused our financial crisis in the first place, introduce Kemp-Roth, a plan to slash taxes across the board and put more money back into the hands of the wage-earners. Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan embraced it as the centerpiece of his campaign’s economic plan, rode it to victory in 1980, and ushered in the era of supply-side economics that has largely guided conservatives in Washington for the last generation. Facing a similarly desperate economic future if we do not act soon, Wisconsin’s First District Congressman Paul Ryan has introduced his Roadmap for America’s Future, designed to put America on a path to a “future in which the principles that created America’s freedom and prosperity are restored.

Ryan’s Roadmap is so great, it’s even got its own website complete with a brief letter from Paul:

America faces a choice between two fiscal and economic futures.

In one, ever-rising levels of government spending overwhelm the Federal budget and the U.S. economy with crushing burdens of debt and higher taxes. It is a future in which America’s best century is the past century.

The second future is one in which the principles that created America’s freedom and prosperity are restored. It is the path set out in my plan, A Roadmap for America’s Future

At the time Kemp-Roth was introduced, the Congressional Budget Office Director said it would decrease output, because people would simply be able to make the same amount of income by working less. The lack of understanding encompassed in that comment, as well as basic liberal ideology in general that believes tax rates have no impact of productivity and output, was unfortunately the prevailing view at the time, and even Republican candidate George H.W. Bush referred to the plan as ‘voodoo economics’ in his primary contest against Reagan.

Today, American voters have relegated the Republican Party to the back bench precisely because the Party has failed to live up to Reagan’s legacy of big ideas, bold initiatives and fiscal sanity. Our Republican Party today has thrown away any pretense of conservatism and has become addicted to pork-barrel spending, and being led by such staggering ineptitude, Republicans are as adrift and desolate as America was in the late 1970’s.

Ryan’s Roadmap has the singular ability to again propel the GOP as the Party of Reform, ensure the solvency of our country for the next generation of Americans, and if he is wise enough to embrace it as a ‘former foot soldier of the Reagan Revolution’, unite conservatives behind John McCain in November.

In a nutshell, the Roadmap would address four issues:

- Health Insurance. The bill provides universal access to affordable health insurance, by shifting the ownership of health coverage from the government and employers to individuals. It provides a refundable tax credit – $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families – to purchase coverage. Individuals will be able to buy insurance offered by any provider in any state – not just the one where they live – and carry it with them if they move or change jobs.

This will encourage, and enable, people to shop for the coverage best suited to their needs and financial circumstances. Insurance companies will also have an incentive to diversify coverage at competitive prices. The active participation of individuals and families in a national, competitive market will restrain health-care costs.

The plan also establishes transparency in health-care price and quality data, so this critical information is readily available before someone needs health services. It also encourages the adoption of health information technology.

- Medicaid and Medicare. The bill modernizes Medicaid by giving states maximum flexibility to tailor their Medicaid programs to the specific needs of their populations. It also allows Medicaid recipients to avail themselves of the health-coverage options open to everyone else through the tax-credit option.

The bill secures the existing Medicare program for those over 55 – so Americans can receive the benefits they planned for throughout most of their working lives. Those 55 and younger will, when they retire, receive an annual payment of up to $9,500 to purchase health coverage – either from a list of Medicare-certified plans, or any plan in the individual market, in any state.

The payment is adjusted for inflation and based on income, with low-income individuals receiving greater support and a funded medical savings account.

- Social Security. Workers under 55 will have the option of investing over one-third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts. These personal accounts are likely to grow faster than the traditional benefit. They are also the property of the individual, and are thus fully inheritable. The bill includes a guarantee that no one’s total Social Security benefits from the personal accounts will be less than if he had chosen to say in the current system.

Combined with a more realistic plan for growth in Social Security benefits, and an eventual increase in the retirement age, the Social Security program can thus become sustainable for the long term.

- Tax Reform. The current federal tax code is complex, burdensome and discourages economic growth. It cannot be fixed with incremental changes; it needs a complete overhaul.

To accomplish this goal, the bill first of all offers individuals a choice of how to pay their taxes – either through the existing law, or through a simplified code with a tax return that fits on a postcard, just two rates and virtually no special tax deductions, credits or exclusions (except the health-care tax credit). Taxpayers themselves choose which code serves them better.

The rates in the simplified code are 10% on income up to $100,000 for joint filers ($50,000 for single filers); and 25% on taxable income above these amounts. There is also a generous standard deduction and personal exemption totaling $39,000 for a family of four. The alternative minimum tax is eliminated. And to promote long-term investment in economic growth, taxes on capital gains, dividends and estates are also eliminated.

On the business side, the bill gets rid of our uncompetitive corporate tax – currently the second highest in the industrialized world – and replaces it with a business consumption tax of 8.5%, which is half the average industrialized world rate.

Will Ryan’s fellow Republicans support his plan? Please forgive me if I have my doubts. After all, as our friends over at AFP noted in their editorial about Ryan’s plan:

Republicans have to truly embrace and support if they ever want to regain the trust of American taxpayers. Instead, they’ve been doing things like creating a “Fiscal Integrity Task Force” — aka the “FIT Force,” which is supposed to be “taking government spending from fat to fit,” and to find ways “to get government off Americans’ backs and out of their wallets.”

Sounds good, but the top two House Republicans in charge of this supposed “Fiscal Integrity Task Force” — U.S. Reps. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan and Kevin Brady of Texas — actually voted FOR last week’s bloated $300 billion farm bill that includes taxpayer-funded subsidies for millionaire farmers, countless pork for every special interest lobby under the sun, and that unnecessarily raises the cost of food!

These are the guys in charge of “Fiscal Integrity?!” No wonder voters and taxpayers don’t trust most Republicans.

Written in the JS Online coverage of the plan, ‘Republican insiders also say Ryan’s measure represents the kind of fresh thinking the party needs to turn itself around after losing control of Congress. At a time when party leaders are looking for new ideas to convince Americans that they can lead again, Republican strategists say he offers a comprehensive plan that could help the party recast itself as the party of limited government and fiscal restraint.’

In a presidential debate, even Barack Obama admitted that for much of the last generation, it was the Republicans who had the Party of ideas, and we need to reclaim that brand. On their website, Freedom Works lists out six things Republicans can do ’save themselves.’ The first piece of the plank?

Republicans desperately need to cook up some new ideas and craft an attractive agenda to have any chance of success…The name of the agenda doesn’t matter, but the substance does. Voters no longer think lean government, smart and strong defense, and good old-fashioned family values when they think Republican. They think reckless spenders, misguided war and hypocrisy. Republicans ‘don’t have a vision,’ says former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX). ‘Their behavior is being government by a bad political model, and we’re losing races.’

Republicans need to focus on cutting taxes, slashing spending and rediscovering their edge on national security matters. More important, they need to jump ahead of Democrats in thinking anew about entitlement programs, health care, technological innovation, global trade and new energy plans.

Bill Frist, the former Senate majority leader and now a visiting professor at Princeton University, also recommends the ‘big idea’ approach. His prescription: ‘Take on health care in a way that focuses on consumer-driven health,’ providing ‘a contrast to the big government of Democrats.’

If the GOP and John McCain are looking for a bold initiative to capture America’s attention, restore the Party’s standing, and leave America better off for the next generation, Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future is the perfect first step.

As Wisconsin Republicans gather in Stevens Point this weekend in preparation for the upcoming election cycle and focus on “Making Wisconsin a Red State in ‘08″, I was struck in listening to our two Congressmen address the audience, Paul Ryan (WI-1) and Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-5), how well they articulated both the problems facing the GOP brand today, and how to lead both the Party and the country forward.

Though watching the Paul and Jim Show is kind of like watching a ‘good cop, bad cop’ routine, the current climate for Republicans does require some serious soul-searching and tough decision-making (what in Oklahoma we used to refer to as a ‘come to Jesus meeting’), but also a way to convince Americans we have learned our lessons of the corrupting influence of power, and that we are better prepared to lead our country forward with a pathway to the future that encompasses the key issues facing our nation while drawing a clear distinction between us and the Democrats.

While Republicans believe in people, and the inherent abilities of its citizenry, Democrats believe in government and offer nothing more than a further push toward socialism with their health, taxation and energy policies. This is a debate we should be having, and a debate we can win.

First, Congressman Paul Ryan gave a very passionate speech describing his Roadmap for America’s Future, and he will shortly be introducing a bill in Congress with the same name. It includes health and retirement security, a plan to win globalization by making America the most competitive nation of the 21st Century, and leaving a debt-free nation to our next generation. As has previously been commented, too often Republicans have focused more on the next election than the next generation, and to earn back the trust of voters we need to convince them we can be trusted with the future.

Paul represents that future for the Republican Party, and if GOP leadership and our presidential nominee are smart and paying attention, they will adopt the Ryan Plan as the Roadmap for a New Republican Majority, because it is exactly this kind of foresight and leadership Americans expect from our Party. One of Ryan’s comments, was that for the last 40 years, keeping our federal government functioning at its current levels, has required approximately 18 cents of each dollar earned in America.

Over the next generation, when Paul’s children are the age the Congressman is now, it will require a tax of 40 cents of each dollar earned in this country, just to keep the government functioning at current levels and provide the same level of service currently offered. This is double our existing tax burden, and that is just to keep the same level of service, not to mention all of the new projects and spending initiatives being discussed by the current presidential candidates. What of national, socialized healthcare in the US? What will that do to the 40 percent tax burden? What of the new global warming and climate change initiatives? How much more will that raise the level of taxation in this country? When Republicans present the prospect of fully half of all income earned in the United States, being taxed just to pay the cost of running our federal government, this is a debate we can win because our opponents have nothing to offer as an alternative.

Ryan further articulated, that it is expected of each generation that they would leave this country better off, more prosperous and safer for the next generation, and we are in danger of abdicating that responsibility if we do not take massive and consistent action immediately. He also defined the Republican agenda of liberty, freedom, embrace of free enterprise, and limited government. Too frequently, the GOP leadership has forgotten this, and if John McCain is listening he should not only embrace Ryan’s Roadmap, he should embrace a McCain-Ryan ticket in November.

Speaking of ‘reclaiming our (GOP) brand’ was Congressman Sensenbrenner, who correctly noted Republicans had lost their way and with it, their mandate for governing. Here is a text of Sensenbrenner’s speech to the assembled Republicans:

My Fellow Republicans:

To win in November, we need a strong message. We need to reclaim our brand. We need to act like Republicans and vote like Republicans. When I spoke to you last year, I said that Republicans lost the 2006 election because we had lost our way. We lost our way because we spend too much money. We lost our way because we crammed thousands of earmarks into appropriations bills which had to pass to keep the government running.

We lost our way by borrowing money to build bridges to nowhere in Alaska and to send billions to the Gulf Coast without putting in the safeguards to prevent it from being misused and stolen. During this time, I stood almost alone in saying that this was not why the voters elected Republicans and this was not the direction the people wanted America to go. I was one of eight to vote against the highway bill and one of 11 to vote against the Katrina bill. I’m proud that I am among the top 10 of all Members of Congress standing for fiscal responsibility in the National Taxpayers Union roll call.

Bluntly, we lost the Republican brand. We win elections by showing we have a different vision of the future of America than our opponents. We need to act like Republicans and vote like Republicans.

Paul Ryan and I are working to do just that. Whether it’s line item vetoes, earmark reform, environment solutions which do not wreck the economy, or lower gas prices through increased domestic production, Paul and I are there showing that Republicans offer change that makes a positive difference, rather than the Democrats’ and “Queen Nancy Pelosi’s” empty promises of change for change’s sake.

National security is one issue where there is a big difference between Republicans and our political opponents, and we should be highlighting these differences. During my time as Judiciary Committee Chairman, we wrote and passed the Patriot Act. This law made America and Americans safer in a way that protected civil liberties. I’m proud of that.

We also wrote and passed the REAL ID Act–a necessary changed called for by the 9/11 Commission. REAL ID is more than an anti-terrorism law. It is an essential tool to curtail illegal immigration, but it’s up to individual states to implement REAL ID so those not legally in the country are prohibited from getting drivers’ licenses.

REAL ID is also a public safety tool as it prevents those who lose their licenses, including serial drunk drivers, from going to another state to get a clean license. No wonder a coalition of the ACLU, the illegal immigrant lobby, and those who see no role for the government to play in most everything, including our safety, have attacked REAL ID from the beginning with bogus claims.

The State budget repair bill which passed this week strips away the money to implement REAL ID in Wisconsin. Worse, last year’s budget hiked the drivers’ license fee by $10 to pay for REAL ID implementation. The budget repair bill steals that money to use for other spending, an idea that goes against the foundation of our core values.

All Republicans in the State Senate voted against this bill. Unfortunately, Speaker Heubsch decided to push it through the Assembly. And he did so in a manner which does not fix the problems of overtaxing, and replaces transportation fees with more state borrowing–exactly the same move which helped destroy the Republican brand. Everyone can see this is a political shell game that simply postpones the hard decisions.

Sometimes, leadership consists of saying “NO” to bad policies, rather than going along to get along. I know firsthand how difficult it is to go against the grain–I have even said “no” to our President. When we don’t compromise on Republican principles, Republicans win elections. If we act like RINOs, voters will see no difference between us and the Democrats. We need to look at what we have done. We need to look at where we are going in the future. We must stop making excuses.

Let’s be united, but be united for fiscal responsibilities, security, and giving the people value for their tax dollars. Let’s be committed to getting this right. We need to act like Republicans and vote like Republicans. You can count on me!

Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Ryan represent the best of the GOP, a dichotomy of age and style, but a uniform adherence to the principles which made the us America’s Party in the first place. To reclaim our majority and our mandate, we not only need to have a contrite conversation with the voters about how we lost our way, we need to gain their permission to lead again by once more being the Party of ideas, fiscal responsibility and a clear distinction from our opponents. As has been proven in recent special elections, in which Democrats picked up three Republican seats in strong conservative disctricts, Republicans will not win by merely labeling their opponents as liberal, when those opponents are running as pro-life, pro-gun and pro-fiscal responsibility Democrats.

Can you imagine that conversation between a voter and candidate?

Republican Candidate: “You’ve been there for us in the past and I need your vote.”

Voter: “Nah, I’m voting for the Democrat this time.”

Republican Candidate: “But he’s liberal and I’m conservative.”

Voter: “I don’t think so, he seems to me like he’s pretty conservative.”

Republican Candidate: “But he’s just taking conservative stances during the campaign, and once he gets into office he’s going to run to the left and forget all about those conservative promises.”

Voter: “Isn’t that what Republicans have been doing for several years now? I think I’ll take my chances…”

When voters cannot tell the difference between the two parties, we will lose. Republicans need to clearly define not only where we went wrong–and vote out the leadership who has allowed it to happen–but also provide a clear, articulate and differentiating pathway forward than our opponents. Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Ryan represent just that, and Wisconsin Republicans are proud to claim them as our own.

As I posted after the Hillary’s big win over Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary, I felt a tinge of respect and admiration for the former First Lady-turned-Senator; she proved she could take a punch–as well as a shot and a beer–and still come back swinging. As Bear Bryant once said, “It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog.” But even more than that, what really seemed to cause Republican empathy for Hillary was that she has been treated, and has responded, like one of us…come to think of it, she has actually responded much more forcefully than many Republicans would have in the face of a similar barrage of attacks by a mass media in the tank for her opponent, by cries of racism from prominent African-Americans, and by the “Judas-like” betrayal of former friends and supporters.

As posted at Weekly Standard, “the Hillary of May 2008 is radically different from the Hillary of two months ago, much less the one of last year, or of eight years back. And this one (at least till the nomination is settled) has some traits the right wing can love.“

One observer once said that the main importance of PT-109 in the life of John Kennedy was that it was the only time in his life (until he was murdered) when the power and wealth of his father couldn’t help him at all. Hillary in February 2008, after Obama’s stunning string of 10 victories, was like JFK in the water–everything she was used to relying on had proved to be useless, except that in her case the people around her kept trying to hold her head under, insisting it was for her, and of course for the party’s, own good. In these dire straits, Hillary channeled her inner survivor, and, like John Kennedy, became a Gut Fighter writ large. She fought her way to an island, dragging her crew mates behind her, fed them on coconuts, and sent word for rescue. And then it came. “This one’s for you!” she cried out to her base in hard-pressed Ohio as she pulled out the Big One, to their riotous cheers.

Republicans are used to being the targets of a biased media intent at moving America further and further toward a completely secular and welfare-driven state, but for Hillary this treatment must have been completely foreign, for surely she expected the same Teflon treatment enjoyed for the last decade and a half by her husband. But the media proved their relationship with the Clintons was not biblical but merely one of convenience, and once Obama won Iowa he immediately became the preferred flavor of the day for both the media and the so-called limousine liberals, who apparently view his ascendancy as the perfect cure for their white guilt.

Liberals love victims and want them to stay helpless, so they can help them, with government programs; while conservatives love those who refuse to be victims, and get up off the canvas and fight. Hillary may still be a nanny-state type in some of her policies, but in her own life she seems more and more of a Social Darwinian, refusing to lose, and insisting on shaping her destiny. If the fittest survive, she intends to be one of them. This takes her part of the way towards a private conversion. She is acting like one of our own. If this weren’t enough to make right-wing hearts flutter, Hillary has another brand-new advantage: She is hated on all the right fronts. The snots and the snark-mongers now all despise her, along with the trendies, the glitzies; the food, drama, and lifestyle critics, the beautiful people (and those who would join them), the Style sections of all the big papers; the slick magazines; the above-it-all pundits, who have looked down for years on the Republicans and on the poor fools who elect them, and now sneer even harder at her. The New York Times is having hysterics about her.

Even Richard Scaife, the conservative who bankrolled many of the anti-Clinton campaigns during the 90’s, admitted some respect for Hillary when she showed up at his newspaper for an interview, and his was apparently the only newspaper in Pennsylvania who endorsed her.

Hillary Clinton walked into a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review conference room last Tuesday to meet with some of the newspaper’s editors and reporters and declared, “It was so counterintuitive, I just thought it would be fun to do.”

The very morning that she came to the Trib, our editorial page raised questions about her campaign and criticized her on several other scores.

Reading that, a lesser politician — one less self-assured, less informed on domestic and foreign issues, less confident of her positions — might well have canceled the interview right then and there.

Sen. Clinton came to the Trib anyway and, for 90 minutes, answered questions.

Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her.

Walking into our conference room, not knowing what to expect (or even, perhaps, expecting the worst), took courage and confidence. Not many politicians have political or personal courage today, so it was refreshing to see her exhibit both.

I think Scaife’s comments accurately reflect the opinion many on the Right have of Hillary: Even though we disagree with her on a host of issues, she has never been accused of cowardice and that is admirable in a political culture of fear, hesitancy and weakness.

A few years ago I organized an event for the Wisconsin Republican Young Professionals, where former Lieutenant Governor Margaret Farrow spoke to us, and encouraged young people to get involved in the political process and make our voices heard. Her passion and encouragement was tempered by a warning, however, when she said “the loneliest place in the world is to have your name on a ballot.”

Hillary seems to be at her best when she is out there, exposed and alone with her back to the wall. In the darkest days of the Clinton scandals, as the president hid in the White House with advisors, it fell to Hillary to be out in front, marshaling the troops and leading the forces into battle. Similarly, during the low points in her campaign, as inevitability turned to inconvenience, and as her husband learned that without the media on your side it’s not quite so easy to show the charming and eloquent side of your personality, and even amid campaign staff shake-ups and infighting, it appeared Hillary finally realized she was on her own and it was up to her to salvage what was left of her presidential ambitions. Months after she first claimed to do so in New Hampshire, at long last Hillary did in fact seem to find her own voice.

Interesting how it is left to conservatives, who have long used the fearful image of a Hillary presidency to rally their own troops, are now the only ones left to treat a fellow warrior with some modicum of dignity and respect.

I’ve always thought the Wisconsin Republican Party, notwithstanding the fact our state has two Democratic US Senators, a Democratic governor, a majority of the congressional delegation, and control of the state senate, has a deep bench of talented individuals who could be welcome additions to the national stage. While Ambassador Mark Green is not likely finished in politics and may return at some point, two former colleagues are getting some national attention, one as a strong candidate to pick up a House seat this year, and another as a potential running mate for Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain.

Former Speaker John Gard, who recently kicked off his second attempt at winning Wisconsin’s eighth congressional seat Mark Green won easily each time he ran for re-election, was described by NRCC Chair Tom Cole as “our best candidate to who didn’t win last time.”

The former legislator, who is repeating his run for the seat, is seen by many as one of Republicans’ top recruits in the whole country. Asked about challengers with whom they were impressed, several freshmen Republicans, including Reps. Kevin McCarthy, of California, Jim Jordan, of Ohio and Peter Roskam, of Illinois, all mentioned Gard’s name independently of each other.

Repeating some of the early missteps of Kagen’s brief career in Washington, you can expect to see these comments not going over very well in conservative, modest northern Wisconsin:

“You’re in the White House and you think you’re safe, huh? You recognize me? My name’s Dr. Multimillionaire and I kicked your ass,” Kagen said he told top White House strategist Karl Rove at a reception.

He bragged, too, that he had confronted Vice President Cheney and insulted Laura Bush, though the White House denied each of the three incidents. Kagen later had to apologize for his comments. “Kagen’s given us a lot to talk about,” Cole chuckled.

While Gard has a good chance to reclaim WI-8, Congressman Paul Ryan (WI-1) will breeze to re-election once again…if he is on the ballot. Human Events Online writer John Gizzi has Ryan being considered by McCain for the veep spot, which would not only do a lot to assure conservatives of McCain’s intentions, but provide an attractive Midwestern choice to balance the ticket against likely Democratic candidate Barack Obama, who is bound to have some serious problems attracting the very moderate and culturally conservative voters Ryan would bring.

Earlier this year, when I asked Rep. Phil English (R-Penn.) his favorite choice for a runningmate with John McCain. “Paul Ryan,” he replied, naming his Republican colleague from Wisconsin and fellow House Ways and Means Committee Member and, in the process, giving me a jolt.

As a Member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, he has been a force behind tax cuts and trimming discretionary spending.  Ryan (lifetime American Conservative Union rating: 93%) has also been a strong booster of gunowners’ right, pro-life legislation, and tougher measures on illegal immigration.

Impressive, all right, but the first impression is not ready for presidential politics.  English disagrees.  As he put it, “Paul is Catholic, from the Rustbelt, and has the economic credentials Sen. McCain needs.”  Other Republican backbenchers agree, and talk of Ryan-for-Veep mushrooms in the House GOP Conference.

Ryan’s selection would also put the Social Security crisis back on center stage, and unlike the way this issue was mismanaged by the Bush Administration (a senior Republican congressman described it as ‘Bush wanted to knock over the hornet’s nest, but then he didn’t want to stick around and help swat away the bees’…), Ryan has the knowledge and ability to convincingly articulate the benefits of reforming the rapidly-going-bankrupt federal entitlement program. It would also force Obama to take a position on the topic and offer some sort of coherent solution, something he has so far refused to do on one of the most pressing issues of this century.

Having held sixty-four town meetings on the issue at home and introduced at least three bills for Social Security reform, the lawmaker believes “the best way to fix Social Security is large personal retirement accounts, which grow at an average of 5 or 6 % a year. And over a person’s lifetime, the benefit obligation obviously shifts from the government to the account. That’s good for many reasons. It’s good for economic reasons. It’s good because the power of compound interest is harnessed on behalf of the individual. It’s also good for political and philosophical reasons, because people become more independent. People become more self-reliant. People become owners of our free enterprise system. Actually, there isn’t an idea out there, that more decentralizes the concentration of wealth in America than large personal retirement accounts for Social Security.”

Another issue likely to come up is simplifying the US tax code:

“At the end of the day, I think our taxes should tax income once at its source, and never again. We should not have these double and triple layers of taxation on capital like we have in the code today. And those ought to be eliminated. So I think George W. Bush did a lot of good work on this. I think where they went is probably the best, most intelligent way to go. My friends [who support] the Fair Tax are onto a good idea. Unfortunately, just watching the way this place works, I fear that we’ll just look like Europe, and we’ll have an income tax with a sales tax on top of it.”

John McCain should do well among seniors, but may struggle against Obama in attracting young voters, and putting the young and articulate Ryan on the ticket, while helping to win Midwest states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio, could also send a message to young voters nationwide that the Republican Party is still the Party of ideas, progress and a better future for all Americans.

A few months ago, I posted a comment saying if I were a Democrat, I would probably have voted for Barack Obama in a primary, and I felt he would be the better candidate for the Democrats going into November. He didn’t have the Clinton baggage, he seemed to be transcending the political chatter and bringing throngs of new, young voters into the Democratic mix with his blend of charisma, passion and fundraising prowess. But after watching Hillary Clinton the past couple of months, I’m not so sure. As I often say, I am not a political consultant and nobody is paying me for my campaign wisdom, but as a Republican I think I’m prepared to say I’m really pulling for an Obama nomination.

The double-digit Clinton win in today’s Keystone State primary is just additional proof of how much a fighter she is, and how formidable an opponent she would be in November. Perhaps fitting, her victory speech in Rocky Balboa’s hometown solidified the reputation Hillary has earned as a relentless campaigner with a huge heart, who despite facing an opponent with more natural talent, more money, an adoring press, and every other conceivable advantage, has picked herself up off the canvas to stay alive for one more round.

You can almost picture numerous Democrat superdelegates playing the Burgess Meredith character in the corner, yelling “Stay down, stay down!” as she slowly gets to her feet…Obama can complain all he wants about the ‘kitchen sink’ treatment recently, but Hillary has had the same treatment for almost 20 years.

“Some people counted me out and said to drop out but the American people don’t quit, and they deserve a president who doesn’t quit, either,” Clinton told supporters at a victory rally after walking out to Tom Petty’s song “I Won’t Back Down.”

“We were up against a formidable opponent who outspent us 3-1… trying to knock us out of the race,” Clinton said of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., “Well the people of Pennsylvania had other ideas today.”

While he once seemed to walk on water, Democrats must be asking themselves, “Does Barack Obama have a glass jaw? and Can he possibly go up against a genuine war hero in John McCain come November?” Certainly the recent revelations that for 20 years he attended a church led by a racist, bigoted anti-American pastor who blamed America for 9/11, the comments by his wife that until her husband started winning primaries she had never felt pride in this country, and his own comments that seemed to say if you were a hunter or a Christian, you were bitter because of your economic status, have combined to drop his numbers.

But more than the Democratic primary, those issues are far more likely to haunt him come August and September, when rural voters in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania begin to question if he is just another liberal elitist with a disdain for regular Americans who didn’t go to Harvard, as opposed to a post-partisan candidate who can unite the country toward a common vision.

Yes, I realize Hillary had a natural edge in Pennsylvania, with its demographics and the political organization of popular incumbent governor Ed Rendell both favoring Clinton. But it’s not just Pennsylvania, it was New Hampshire, it was Nevada, it was Super Tuesday, it was Ohio and Texas…every time Obama needed to just clinch one victory to put this nomination away, he has failed to do so, despite massive amounts of spending that by some accounts reached a 3:1 advantage over Clinton in Pennsylvania.

As a very wise man once said, coffee is for closers… …

Looking at the delegate math, and at the very real risk of massive amounts of black voters bolting the Democratic Party if anyone other than Barack Obama is the nominee given his likely delegate and popular vote leads, I don’t see how Hillary gets the nomination, no matter how much heart or passion she has demonstrated during this campaign…and I think that’s probably a good thing for Republicans.

Follow up to my last post about the Democrats turning their backs on democracy and freedom in South America, preferring instead to embrace the politics and objectives of dictator Hugo Chavez, I read a good article in the Weekly Standard covering the same topic. Here are few of the excerpts…

Memo to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez: Send flowers to the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

It is Chávez who profits most from the CFTA’s demise. For years now, he’s been locked in a struggle with Colombian president lvaro Uribe over the future of South America. Chávez wants that future to be socialist, authoritarian, friendly to other dictators, and belligerent toward the United States. Uribe wants it to be market-oriented, democratic, and integrated into an international system friendly to freedom and organized and led by the United States. The two visions could not be more different.

One of the great lies by Democrats and their labor allies, is that free trade costs America jobs by shipping them overseas to lower wage destinations. While I understand many politicians are not likely to let the facts get in the way of a good campaign slogan, that is simply not true and Columbian-made goods actually come into America today tariff-free, while it is American manufacturers who are hurt due to the fees added to their goods shipped to Columbia. This agreement would have changed that an been a boon to American companies.

The arguments against the CFTA are laughably weak. Congressional Democrats say the deal would hurt U.S. workers. But more than 90 percent of Colombian imports already enter this country duty-free. So the main economic effect of the agreement would be the elimination of tariffs on U.S. exports to Colombia–thus helping U.S. workers. The agreement would “level the playing field” to our advantage. One estimate says the U.S. farm sector alone would reap an additional $690 million per year. Hence the balance of trade isn’t the issue. If trade were the issue, then the Democratic Congress wouldn’t have ratified the Peru Free Trade Agreement in December 2007.

Unfortunately, with both Democrat candidates for president and their majorities in Congress rallying for protectionism and against the real and quantified benefits of global trade for Americans, this is likely only the first step in punishing American companies and our allies abroad in an effort to partner with dictators in the name of workers rights.

The Hill is posting an article that Independent and erstwhile Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman may be asked to give a keynote address at the 2008 Republican National Convention in support of John McCain…

Republicans close to the McCain campaign say Lieberman’s appearance at the convention, possibly before a national primetime audience, could help make the case that the presumptive GOP nominee has a record of crossing the aisle. That could appeal to much-needed independent voters.

McCain has yet to ask Lieberman to speak, either in primetime or elsewhere, at the convention. But if McCain thinks it will help make his case for the White House, as some of his allies suspect, Lieberman would be willing to speak on his behalf.

“If Sen. McCain, who I support so strongly, asked me to do it, if he thinks it will help him, I will,” Lieberman said in a brief interview.

This reminds me of fellow Democrat senator Zell Miller being given a keynote opportunity in 2004 to blast his fellow Democrats of being weak on national security, in his endorsement of President Bush. I’m not certain how many voters a speech will bring to a candidate, but I can see the 2008 election shaping up much the same, only this time with a strong national security Republican, who happens to also be a war hero, against an unproven, liberal Chicago politician who believes small town Americans choose conservatism because they’re ‘bitter’ and whose wife has never been proud to be an American.

The contrast could be startling to security moms out there, and Senator Lieberman’s reminder that American cannot afford a weak and shaky hand on the wheel in a time of great danger to our country, would be powerful.

I’m posting a you tube link to the Zell Miller speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention…I love the line he used, “My family is more important than my party,” referring to President Bush’s ability to protect America in a time of war. Will Lieberman similarly help send national security Democrats to McCain?

Election year politics are certainly not new or unique, as party candidates attempt to exert influence over the legislative calendar in hopes of both providing an opportunity to support popular legislation, and avoid having to make a tough vote that could hurt in the presidential election. What the Democrats are doing on the free trade bill with Columbia, however, is not only poor politics, it really underscores why this is a party that simply cannot be put in charge of managing the country or our global affairs.

While this election cycle has seen its share of winners and losers, it appears free trade has been the biggest casualty to date. Whereas Bill Clinton and the New Democrats embraced free trade as not only a way to help American companies, but also as a key component of American foreign policy by allowing other countries access to American consumers, contemporary Democrats have abandoned any thought of expanding this policy and are instead following verbatim the orders given them by organized labor. Now Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seemingly are contesting who hates free trade more, blaming it for all of society’s ills and American’s unhappiness.

It’s a sad day for Republicans when we are left wanting for Clintonian (Bill, not Hill) policy…

With regards to Columbia, columnist Bob Novak wrote a piece describing the current state of that free trade agreement that was signed in November, 2006:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not want to make her members cast votes on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. It is unconditionally opposed by the AFL-CIO, which is uninterested in negotiating changes. But to forget about a vote this year as Pelosi wants would be akin to an outright rejection in its international implications. It would humiliate Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a free-trader and a bulwark against the spreading influence in Latin America of Venezuela’s leftist strongman President Hugo Chavez.

Sometimes governing means making tough decisions, decisions that may not poll well or sit well with your longtime allies. Much as in Wisconsin, it’s easy for Republicans to stand up to the teachers union; what proves moral courage is the willingness to stand up to road builders, realtors, and business lobbies who all claim to oppose over-regulation or pork, except when it is their own.

The global policy of standing by Columbia and sending a message that we will support them, is not merely a question of free trade. It is about supporting an ally who is in the fight of his life, for his country’s future. As Novak further comments:

“Colombia has fought a long, successful battle against leftist guerillas supported and financed by Chavez. As a faithful U.S. ally, Uribe has been astounded by the fate of the trade agreement. A rare insight into what the Uribe regime really thinks is going on was provided me by Vice President Francisco Santos on one of the many trips to Washington by senior Colombian officials to court congressional support. Santos told me Chavez’s controlled labor unions in Venezuela are in close touch with Colombia’s leftist unions, who in turn influence the AFL-CIO. Thus, the labor intransigence in Washington can be traced to Caracas.

To be clear on this, the Democrat Party in the U.S. and their allies in organized labor, are so intent on blocking the growth of free trade that they are taking marching orders from the Chavez regime and abandoning one of this country’s strongest–and only–allies in South America.

Cato has also posted a great editorial on this topic, and quoted President Bush’s 2008 State of the Union speech when he called Colombia “a friend of America that is confronting violence and terror, and fighting drug traffickers,” the president warned Congress that “if we fail to pass this agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere. So we must come together, pass this agreement, and show our neighbors in the region that democracy leads to a better life.”

Standing by an ally in need, is not a question of economic policy or presidential politics, it is a question of right and wrong. Are Democrats really prepared to lose Columbia, and with it perhaps the rest of Latin America, because they lack the moral courage to stand up to labor unions and refuse to be owned by Hugo Chavez? At some point politics has to end and governing has to begin, and while I do not claim Democrats have the corner on substituting political convenience for proper governance, in this case it clearly articulates why this current crop of Democrats cannot be trusted with our children’s future.

As I was reading about this topic, I was reminded of a quote by Martin Luther King, Jr in which he said “in the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” If Democrats want to, as they so often claim, restore America’s reputation in the world, the best to accomplish that is not to turn our back on a friend in need, but to state unequivocally to the world that America will stand with our allies and anyone else who stands for freedom.

UPDATE: According to a posting on TheHill.com, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is going to block the vote on the free trade agreement with Columbia:

Pelosi said Democrats decided in a closed-door caucus meeting Wednesday morning to vote on a rule this week to postpone consideration of the controversial trade deal. Pelosi predicted the trade agreement would fail otherwise…Some Republicans have accused Pelosi, who is under pressure from labor unions and much of her caucus to oppose the deal, of “cheating” by scheduling a rule change to circumvent fast-track.

So here is why conservative Republicans were disgusted when a handful of Republicans organized the Gang of 14 to preserve the long-standing tradition in the Senate…it’s not because we lack an appreciation for bipartisanship, but because we knew that were Democrats in power, they would have absolutely no qualms of changing rules and traditions to fit their liberal base’s orders.

The actions of Speaker Pelosi reinforce that point. The Columbia trade agreement would aid American manufacturers by eliminating tariffs charged to American goods shipped to Columbia; Columbian goods are already shipped to the US practically duty-free, so this has nothing to do with preventing lower priced goods from entering the United States.

The next time the Democrats pretend to care about American business and the plight of the American working man, keep the fact they have done everything they could to punish American workers and companies in mind, all while aiding ruthless dictator Hugo Chavez.

The outlook was bright, the future sunny, for the mighty Pack;
After a close run last season, next year they’d be back.
With receivers galore, a special teams and a running game to boot,
The 2008 Packers would give their fans more reasons to holler and hoot.

No more Giants, Bears or Cowboys would be standing in their way,
There would be only green and gold, at the end of the Super Bowl day.
There was, of course, one hitch, but that was nothing to fear,
The Packers mighty Brett just needed to come back for one more year.

And over the weeks of indecision, Wisconsin’s optimism seemed legit,
That Brett would once again come back; of course he couldn’t quit.
Last year was a resurgence, the Brett Favre of old was back!
Records fell like temperatures, as number four launched his air attack.

What man could hang them up, with so much still left in the tank?
Not to mention twelve million more reasons, ready to deposit in the bank.
Not this year, we all believed; he’ll give it one more try,
We will have at least another year, before he leaves and we all cry.

But what started as a rumor, quickly gave way to fact,
National news was interrupted, his driveway with reporters was packed.
After years of heartache and courage, would the legend really do it?
Fans tried to cling to hope, but in our heart of hearts we knew it.

His press conference brought many tears, from family, fans and his own,
He was, of course, not owned by us; he was merely ours on loan.
For his family needed him also, two daughters and his wife,
He’d given his fans nearly two decades, now it was time for the rest of his life.

But I hope a thought was in his mind that day, a thought that made him smile.
He’d given us everything he had, and that was what made it all worthwhile.
Who knows if Mighty Brett, will ever realize just how much he meant?
But he can rest assured, his fans know every penny paid was well spent.

One day Packer football season will begin anew, with a team led by a new name.
But pity the poor soul who must follow a legend, for he can never be the same.
Across this nation fans will cheer their teams, who will show up each week to play,
But there will be no joy in Packer Nation, for the great one has walked away.

Thanks 4 The Memories, Brett!!!