mike pence

Today, Rep. Mike Pence and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the Chair and Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference, led a blogger conference call.  The representatives stayed on point throughout the call:

• On the economy generally and on the Democrats’ budget proposal specifically, they repeatedly said the Democrats are spending, borrowing and taxing too much.
• They hammered on the Democrats’ proposal as bad for families and small businesses, including family farms.  They emphasized the role of small businesses in job creation.
• They said they believed in free markets, fiscal restraint and tax relief as the keys to growth.
• To that effect, they said Senate and House Republicans would be cooperating closely to promote those messages over the next several weeks and then unveil an alternative budget proposal of their own, which they promise will be a bold, clear contrast with that of the Democrats.

I expected something along these lines, and I don’t object to the sentiment or disagree with their diagnosis of the Democrats' budget.  They’ve identified what’s wrong with the Democrats’ plan, they’ve developed a strategy for responding with their own alternative, and they want to get everyone on record as either supporting the Democrats’ messy bill or the ideal Republican vision. 

The first question went to Quin Hillyer over at AmSpec, who asked how unified we can expect the GOP response to be if a Republican leader like Lamar Alexander broke to vote for the omnibus spending bill.  Pence acknowledged that he and Sen. Alexander had a difference of opinion on that one, but hastened to add that Sen. Alexander had voted for all the limiting amendments and had voted against the stimulus, etc.

For my part, I asked the representatives why, in light of Republicans’ so-far unsuccessful attempts to bring “clean” Republican versions of bills to the floor for debate, their alternative budget would be different.

Rep. Pence answered that Republicans would be given the opportunity on this one.  The Republican House leadership is working closely with the budget committee, and specifically with Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican on that committee.  There are some limitations on how quickly they can move their alternative and get a CBO estimate done on it, but they’re going to use the interim to expose problems with the Democrats’ budget before unveiling their alternative.

Rep. Morris Rodgers said that it was important that it goes to the House floor for debate, and that they wanted the difference in approach to be clear to the American people, too.

As I said earlier, this is about what I expected – when your party is some 70 seats down in the House and retains only the most meager leverage in the Senate, having lost all credibility, you need to remind people that you at least remember what a conservative is supposed to want.

I just hope that’s not all they have in their playbook.  It’s much easier to present a principled image when you’re out of power and have no sway over whether a given bill will pass.

Assurances that the GOP will remain so principled when they regain a measure of power won’t carry a lot of weight without some kind of binding commitments – changing the structure and practices of the party rather than the short-term tactics.  After all, misbehavior that receded smoothly when the majority last changed hands can come back just as readily.  Easy come, easy go.

Today is the first day of CPAC at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington DC.  I attended today from roughly 9:30 to 1:30.  Here are my observations:

• Most interesting development of the day.  Both Paul Ryan and Steve Moore advocated restoring the gold standard.  Before today, I didn't know of mainstream "movement" type conservatives who were advocating fixing the currency.  I guess the influence of Ron Paul is growing.
• Michael Barone drew upon his extensive knowledge of the political realm to offer advice on what conservatives need to do to win again.  One obvious focus was on the youth vote.  Another idea was to exploit the tensions within the Obama coalition--a top-bottom coalition with varying goals and priorities.  If a new Obama proposal to repeal tax deductions on charitable donations is passed, then it would adversely affect the affluent voters that gave Obama strong support.
• I didn't really care for Saul Anuzis' quip that there are two kinds of people, "Democrats and Americans."  That approach is surely the road back to majority status.  The rest of his talk was fine, but that tone will only appeal to the already converted.
• 27 year old Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock was very impressive.  He already could artiiculate his beliefs better than many long time veterans.  He also advocated for expanding conservative outreach to places we don't go, like black and Hispanic communities.  He should have a bright future.
• Last speech I saw was Mike Pence, who got the crowd on its feet the most because he hit the applause lines very hard.  There will be no backing down on Pence and the House Republican caucus's part.  He said that "Republicans will be faithful and loyal in our opposition.
• I also had the pleasure of meeting Rob Willington, director of Rebuild the Party, in line at Chipotle.  It is nice to meet people who you only see online.

The next two days will be busier, so I imagine there will be better things to report back.

Obama Adminstration Negotiates Nuclear Bailout Deal with Iran

by. Irving Peter Freely

WASHINGTON -- Declaring the World's Largest Sponsor of Terrorism "too big to fail," U.S. President Barack Obama today announced the Iranian Nuclear Reinvestment Act of 2009.  The controversal deal, opposed by Republicans, will commit the U.S. Government to funding the Iranian nuclear program through the end of 2010.  The Iranian Nuclear program had become a causalty of the global credit crisis and lower oil prices.

"In this time of global economic crisis," President Obama announced today, "when we stand on the edge of catastrophe, Vice President Biden, Secretary Geithner and Iranian president [Mahmoud] Ahmedinejad have negotiated a deal that should allow us to create or save over 400 jobs in the Iranian Nuclear Sector.  Given the unprecedented nature of the pressures Iran faces, not acting is simply not an option."

The deal is expected to meet resistance on Capitol Hill.

"Is the President serious?"  Asked Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), a member of House Republican Leadership.

"The American People do not want us to send billions of dollars to prop up the nuclear program of a country that regularly declares it's intention to destroy the United States of America," said Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN).

Not all members of Congress feel this way.

"I find it appaling that Herbert Hoover Repubilcans would follow Rush Limbaugh's marching orders to obstruct this crucial economic and national security measure in order to justify their own failed policies," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

"Who do these Republicans think they are?" asked Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), "When the administration negotiates a bailout deal in secret with our enemies, they expect a certain amount of support from the United States Congress.  These Herbert Hoover Republicans seem to think that the Iranian nuclear program will survive if we do nothing.  These Republicans don't understand that real people work in the Iranian nuclear program."

While Republicans are anticpated to largely oppose the deal, Democrats expect the measure to pass largely along party lines, although moderate Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is expected to support the administration.

"I just think that, given the size of the current crisis, we have to do something even if this approach isn't my first choice", Specter said this week on the Sean Hannity Radio show.  "I gave my word to the Senate Leadership and I intend to keep it."

10 in 2010
Republican Senate Pickup opportunities -- 2010.
by Adam Cahn

    Conservatives disheartened by Nov. 4th's "thumping" can take heart; we're only 691 short days away from election day 2010.  Much like Democrats following their 2004 debacle, Republicans now face their best political opportunity in at least five years.  Democrats, who no longer have George W. Bush to kick around, must now govern.  Most of the lingering congressional corruption scandals now feature Democrats (Don Young's fate in Alaska notwithstanding).  Republicans, free from the responsibility of governance, have the luxury of principled obstruction for the first time in sixteen years.  With a focus on conservative reform, impeccable ethics, the right leadership, and a couple lucky breaks Democrats will face political peril in just 691 short days.

While the country is split roughly evenly on the issue of protecting the unborn, Barack Obama will be the most pro-Abortion President to enter office in American history.  In addition, pro-Abortion Democrats in Congress will know their time as a 16 to 20 seat majority in the Senate will be inherently limited.  Given the reality of a near supermajority in congress along with holding the white house, pro-abortion Democrats must strike during this Congress.  The only question is what mechanism Democrats will use.  They have many options; either a frontal legislative attack (which I doubt) or more subtle parlementary manuvers.  Potential Democrat targets include: the 2003 ban on partial birth abortion, laws making it illegal to transport minors across state lines for abortions, or a dramatic expansion of taxpayer funded abortion.  However the public feels about abortion more broadly, the moderate restrictions listed above all enjoy 85% support in the country.

The second major issue that will harm Democrats is land use and economic development on Federally Owned lands in the Western States.  When Democrats put the Green Mafia in charge of the Interior Department and the EPA, they will inevitably put environmental restrictions on economic and recreational activity.  If the history of the Clinton and Carter administrations are a guide, these issues will cost Democrats Senate seats.  In 1992, Democrats had 8 seats in the Interior West; in 2000, they had 3.

The third major issue Republicans will have is ethics and corruption.  With Ted Stevens' defeat, there aren't many corrupt Republicans left.  Democrats, on the other hand, have many members under ethical clouds, including prominent committee chairmen like Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank.  Democrats could see a steady stream of members with ethical issues in the next few years.

The following ten senate races are winnable with the right candidate:

1) Evan Bayh (IN) - While popular among Republicans and a good fit for Dan Quayle's old seat, the former DLC chair is loathed among the Democrat party's activist base.  Controversial votes like (FISA, Partial Birth Abortion, & Z) leave Bayh's left flank vulnerable and other votes (Affirmative Action, ANWR, &  Nuisance Lawsuits against Gun Manufacturers) will allow Republicans to tie Bayh to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and to brand him as out of touch with Indiana's values.  As a member of the Armed Services committee, he is also vulnerable if Democrats attempt serious cuts in Defense Spending.

Potential Candidate: Mike Pence.  Conservatives have known and loved the 2005 Human Events Man of the year for a long time.  Pence, a National Security Hawk, fierce critic of Bloated Budgets, and devout Christian unites the conservative coalition in a way few politicians who happen to be Republicans can.  Additionally, Pence's leadership in the successful "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" insurgency of 2008 can only help when Gas Prices inevitably rise.

2) Barbara Boxer (CA) - This race, while a longshot, is winnable.  California, remember, was Ronald Reagan's home state.  As the 2003 re-call election proved, a Confident Republican can go on offense with a message of unapologetic Conservatism and win (Schwarzenegger's subsequent governance is a separate topic).  Ms. Boxer, while wildly popular in Berkeley and Bel Air, has always had trouble in Bakersfield and Barstow.  Additionally, Boxer's longstanding support for economically catastrophic cap and trade legislation  make her especially vulnerable if the Obama administration makes Global Warming legislation a top priority.  Finally, voter rejection of Prop 8 proves California near as liberal as it is commonly charicatured.

Potential Candidate: Hugh Hewitt.  The telegenic radio host's impeccable conservative credentials will inspire the Republican base to turn out like Crazy while his outstanding communication skills can move the state's recalcitrant independent voters rightward.  Additionally, his nationally syndacated radio audience gives him a built in fundraising network for a seat that will probably require $125 million to capture.  Finally, Hewitt might be the only potential candidate who can successfully thread the immigration needle in the GOP primary.

3) Chris Dodd (CT) - Under normal circumstances, Dodd would be one of the safest  Democrats in the country.  Fortunately for Republicans, and to the detriment of the incumbent, Connecticut's senior Senator faces far from normal circumstances.  Senator Dodd is the U.S. Senator most responsible for the current financial crisis.  In 2003 DOdd recieved a loan from subprime mortgage giant Countrywide Financial's elite "Friends of [Countrywide CEO] Angelo [Mozillo]" program.  Sen Dodd received a combined $781,042 in two mortgages at below market interest rates.  Coincidentally, Dodd blocked Republican efforts to crack down on corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose mortgage securitization process disproportionately benefitted Countrywide.  If current economic difficulties continue or worsen (the latter of which will probably occur), Dodd's personal role in creating the financial crisis will leave him vulnerable in what is otherwise a deep blue state.

Potential Candidate: Larry Kudlow.  If, in economically challenging times, you still believe that free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity, then the popular CNBC host is the strongest potential candidate to take on Dodd.  The former Reagan economic advisor and supply side guru has owned a weekend property in the state for many years, which he could  make his primary residence in about five minutes of paperwork.  Kudlow has been erudite and relentless in explaining how the current financial crisis resulted from Government social engineering, not free-market capitalism.  While Kudlow has previously made terrible lifestyle choices, his subsequent 14 year recovery is a quintessentially American tale of redemption.  Finally, Kudlow's long history on Wall Street would allow him to raise ample funds in what would be an extraordinarily expensive race.

4) Byron Dorgan (ND) - Senator Dorgan faces a many potential pitfalls.  To begin, the incoming majority will be far more liberal on social issues than Senator Dorgan's state.  This leaves Dorgan vulnerable on any far left abortion agenda advocated by democrats.  With the recent discovery of a major oil shale deposit in the state, environmentalist control of the federal government might not resonate either.  With his party in unified Control of government, Senator Dorgan will be unable to distance himself from his party's liberal leadership. 

Potential Candidate: Gov. John Hoeven.  While unknown nationally, the popular governor was overwhelmingly re-elected this year with 74"% of the vote.  The successful governor is a solid, across-the-board conservative with impeccable pro-life credentials.  Given the state's conservatism, the majority party's lurch to the left and the incumbants ties to the Green mafia and the subprime mess, Gov. Hoeven is positioned to win this seat should he choose to run.

5) Russ Feingold (WI) - Despite his unassuming demeanor, the Gentleman from Wisconsin has established a voting record better suited for the Berkeley City Council than a midwestern senator.  In 2001, Feingold irresponsibly voted against the PATRIOT ACT, an essential counterterrorism tool that has prevented a repeat of 9/11.  In 2002, Feingold, along with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), led the greatest assault on the first amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 under the guise of "bi-partisan campaign finance reform."  During his 2004 re-election, Senator Feingold used the afore mentioned act to muzzle the political speech of Wisconsin right to life; Feingold's target in this case leaves him vulnerable to any far left abortion  agenda pursued by the majority party.  While Senator Feingold's Phish concert liberalism goes over well in the MSNBC newsroom, it leaves Feingold dramatically out of step with midwestern values.

Potential Candidate: Rep. Paul Ryan.  Much like Congressman Pence, Congressman Ryan stayed true to conservatism even when the Hastert-led Republican Congress abandoned it.  Articulate and telegenic, Congressman Ryan was just re-elected in a district that went for Obama with a message of unapologetic conservative reform.  Ryan has advanced conservative solutions to middle class economic anxieties on issues such as education, medical care, and retirement security.  Running against an incumbent whose views are to the left of most Madison drum circles, Congressman Ryan's conservative reformism will resonate with voters.

6) Blanche Lincoln (AR) - Another potential casualty of the liberal social policies of the Obama administration is the Senior Senator from Arkansas.  A moderate in the mold of former Governor Bill Clinton, Ms. Lincoln nontheless hails from a socially conservative state that could serve as ground zero in a backlash against liberal social policies of the Obama administration.  Any attempt to pack the federal judiciary with liberal judges could give Arkansans pause about unfettered Democrat control of government in a state that in 2004 voted overwhelmingly against homosexual marriage.

Potential Candidate: Mike Huckabee.  The popular former Governor and Presidential Candidate is the natural selection (evolution pun intended) in this culturally conservative and economically nervous state.  The Baptist Minister could appeal to voters as a check on President Obama's judicial appointments.  Additionally, as a former Presidential candidate, Gov. Huckabee would have access to a national fundraising network among evangelical Christians.  Finally, his national profile would increase dramatically interest in this race.

7) Patty Murray (WA) - Where abortion threatens Democrats in the midwest, Federal Land use policies threaten Democrats in the west.  If the Obama administration, like the Clinton and Carter administrations before it, impose environmental regulations that significantly impede economic activity on Federal Lands, a severe voter backlash could topple the Gentlelady.  Finally, Ms. Murray's support for cap and trade legislation could cost her support in economically troubled times.

Potential Candidate: Congressman Dave Reichart.  The tenacious former Sheriff of King County, perennial Democrat target, has consistently won narrow victories in his Seattle area district that voted for Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama.  While Congressman Reichart's tactical brilliance is unquestioned, his appeal to conservatives lies in the fact that he consistently wins in a majority Democrat district without grandstanding against his own party.  Reichart's libertarian style conservatism allows him to compete in socially liberal Washington while also allowing his to oppose taxpayer funded abortion for budgetary reasons.

8) Barbara Mikulski (MD) - As a very liberal Democrat from a very liberal state, Mikulski should be heavily favored for re-election.  Unfortunately for the incumbent, she is left vulnerable by a speaking style and public persona that can charitably be described as boring, leaving her vulnerable to a charismatic challenger.

Potential Candidate: Michael Steele is the only reason Republicans have a shot at this seat.  Given this reality, Steele should run for the Senate, not the RNC chair.  The former Lieutenant Governor and current head of GOPAC gave a rousing address at this year's Republican National Convention where he spoke movingly about how conservative reforms like school choice benefit lower and middle income families, especially minorities.  Steele gives Republicans the opportunity to craft a reformist economic message that resonates across racial and ethnic lines.  Steele also is the only opportunity Republicans have to neutralize the racial issue heading into 2012.  Steele is a special talent and Republicans should do everything they can to keep him in the national spotlight.

9) Harry Reid (NV) - Republicans have a history of successfully targeting Democrat congressional leadership.  As Reid has become an increasingly partisan national figure, his home state approval ratings have plummeted.  While an influx of liberals  from California moved the state to Obama in 2008, Reid's tenure as majority leader has provided his opponents with plenty of ammunition to use against him.  In addition, given his leadership role in the Washington D.C.'s majority party, Reid is especially vulnerable to the land use issues that will threaten all Western Democrats.  95% of the land in Nevada is owned by the Federal Government.

Potential Candidate: Melody "Mimi Miyagi" Damayo.  The lack of another standout conservative reformer in the state paves the way for Damayo, who placed third in the Republican Primary for Governor in 2006.  While her previous work as an actress in the adult entertainment industry will give many conservatives pause, no one can deny that she was a wildly successful entreprenneur in an intensely competitive industry.  Besides, having a Porn Star on the ticket can only help a party that just lost among 18-29 year old men.

10) Ken Salazar (CO) - Much like his fellow Western Democrats, Federal Land Use issues pose a deep threat to the re-election effort of Colorado's senior senator.  Coloradans have never liked Federal Bureaucrats telling them how to use resources found in their own communities.  Additionally, Obama's fiscal policies threaten Salazar in this historically tax-o-phobic state.

Potential Candidate: Anyone but Tancredo.  Given that this race will probably turn on either national or regional concerns, any Republican with a pulse should make this race competitive.  That said, Tom Tancredo is a lunatic with a massive ego who will lose this seat if nominated.

Keeping a majority coalition together is one of the most difficult feats to accomplish in politics.  Republicans learned this lesson in 2005; Democrats could easily learn it next year.  As issues change, so do the desires of voters.  The fact that issues and times change puts structural limits on any political majority.  Additionally, given that Democrats now control the executive branch, certain issues Republicans used successfully in the 1990's become relevant again.  If Republican are smart, recruit good candidates, and expand the electoral playing field, 2010 can be a very good year.
 

Okay, echoing off davidfarrar's "Next Step For The Next Right", I'd like to start the ball rolling for action to rearrange the House GOP leadership. I don't mind John Boehner, and I think he was strong during the bailout pandemonium, but I want to push for someone a little more charismatic and media savvy, someone who's a thinking conservative with fresh ideas, especially on healthcare. I think we'd all agree that healthcare is going to be a big battle in the next few years.

So, to the sausage-making details:

-- Do we know when/if the House GOP will vote on their next set of leadership?

-- Can we pressure them into reorganizing, and is there a way to a get a representative-by-representative count of their votes in the case of said election?

-- Any ideas for who we could push?

My first vote would be for John Shadegg, my second for Mike Pence.

[Promoted - There's really no chance that Democrats can bring back the Fairness Doctrine itself...and they know this.  As a result, they're trying to impose it by appealing to populist, anti-business and anti-property sympathies.  You can read more about their current efforts in this article at National Review.

The progressive's "media reform" movement is becoming incredibly well-organized and influential, and it's getting positioned to have a major, game-changing impact on the media landscape.  Their 'fairness doctrine through other means' strategy could tilt the political landscape for generations to come.  This is important. - Jon Henke]

Why are the Democrats against free speech? Why do they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? Why are the stalling on an up or down vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act? And the big question, why aren’t conservatives, republicans, and libertarians up in arms over this and pressuring Congress to act.