Tony Snow talks

 

Tony Snow was recently interviewed about his new position as press secretary for the White House. Here is an excerpt of that interview where Tony talks about Mike Pence and his hope to return to conservative principles in the near future.


Q: What gives you the slightest hope that conservatives will return to their core principles — and is there anyone you think might make that happen?

Tony: Oh yeah. Actually, I think voters are making it happen. If you take a look at what’s going on on Capitol Hill, I think Republicans were stunned when voters started calling them and really going crazy when they were going to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on a “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska. In that transportation bill they had more than 6,000 local pork-barrel projects. Mike Pence of Indiana, a former radio talk show host himself, has been one of the guys who has really been out there raising hell about the abandonment of principles. I think you’re seeing clustering around Mike and some other young Republicans — something that reminds me a great deal of Newt Gingrich and something they called the Conservative Opportunity Society in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, where they were getting together and talking about big ideas and core principles. I think the Republicans are realizing that to be principled and visionary in the long run is good politics. Doing the pork-barrel stuff might get you re-elected once or twice — you do that. But you do that at the expense of the soul of a party. In the long run, it’s the ideas, it’s the great figures, it’s the inspirational figures who define a political party and shape in people’s mind an image of what that party is and what it stands for. If any political party is the party of payoffs, it’s going to lose.

Q&A: When Tony Snow was a pundit

Iran Freedom Support Act

 

Here is a speech that Mike Pence gave on the House floor discussing the Iran Freedom Support Act,H.R. 282, which imposes sanctions on Iran.

"Debates of this nature are wholly constructive in the life of the nation, and I rise today, not just to support the Iran Freedom Support Act, but to engage in a thoughtful debate.

“Let me speak for just a second about the Iran Freedom Support Act. It does just a couple things that are worth recitation, and then I want to talk about the nature of this confrontation. This legislation attempts to deny the Iranian regime critical technical and financial resources to pursue unconventional weapons, incite terror and oppress the Iranian people.

“It is important to note that H.R. 282 does not authorize the use of force against Iran, despite the tone and tenor of some of the debate today. Specifically, this bill requires that WMD-related U.S. sanction controls and regulations on Iran remain in effect until Iran has verifiably dismantled its WMD program.

“It also authorizes the President to provide democracy assistance to foreign and domestic individuals and organizations promoting freedom within that country, and engages in a host of additional economic measures and sanctions, including amending the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act to recognize the historic gains that ranking member Lantos referred to in relation to our relationship with Libya.

“Now that being said, I just want to talk as a Hoosier, from the Midwest, about the real stakes here, and about the nature of the present leadership in Iran and the importance of us to speak as one people and as one nation forcefully into this diplomatic engagement.

“Listen to some of the quotes from the leadership of Iran today. President Ahmadinejad said in September of last year, ‘Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.’ We’re not just dealing with nuclear proliferation within a country that has a long and profound history of association with terrorism, but with one that desires to export nuclear technologies.

“President Ahmadinejad said in October of last year, ‘God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and without Zionism.’

“It was not long ago that he said that Iran would inflict both ‘harm and pain’ on the U.S., and his threats against Israel, in particular, should be deeply offensive to every freedom-loving person in the world and every American who cherishes our relationship with our ally Israel.

“President Ahmadinejad said in October of last year, ‘As the Imam said, “Israel must be wiped off the map.”’ And the President of Iran also said, ‘anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.’

“This is a confrontation that I pray we will be able to resolve with strong, smart diplomatic efforts. But if the United States fails to act with clarity, including adopting the Iran Freedom Support Act, the potential consequences of inaction could be catastrophic.

“I urge my colleagues to join the 360 members, Republicans and Democrats alike, who have supported this legislation when it comes to the floor later today.”

Primary Season

 

In a time when it doesn't look good for Republicans and voters are seriously thinking about sitting this one out, here is a word from a voter encouraging folks to go out and support those Republicans who have stay committed to conservative principles.


Moving to Ohio last year didn't stop my addiction to following Indiana politics.

From several years of political work, I know that Wayne County is blessed with some highly qualified incumbents who deserve to be returned to office.

Coming to mind in particular are Sheriff Matt Strittmatter, County Assessor Mike Statzer and Congressman Mike Pence.

They are all dedicated public servants of unquestionable character.

It is easy to become cynical about politics and to think change is needed, but these candidates have put doing the right thing above politics.

They deserve your support in the May 2 Republican primary.

Jo Cornelison, Cincinnati, Ohio

3 candidates put right thing above political interests

New leaders

 

Here is an excerpt from an article by Human Events talking about the 2006 elections and the conservatives that will become the new leaders in Congress.

As Human Events has frequently noted, one egregious failure of Republican government during the Bush years has been massive increases in spending. But last year, House conservatives in the Republican Study Committee led by Human Events Man of the Year Mike Pence (Ind.), began to turn the tide. After Bush promised to spend the moon and the stars on Hurricane Katrina relief, Pence and the RSC conservatives forced the congressional leadership and the President to accept spending cuts—including cuts in entitlement spending—to offset some of the new spending. If Republicans retain their majority, the RSC conservatives are on a political trajectory to become the new leaders of the legislative branch. But not if Democrats take over.

Besides, President Bush’s worst spending bills—the No Child Left Behind Act and the Medicare Prescription drug bill—were enacted only after Bush fought for them against congressional conservatives. In his final two years, a lame-duck Bush will not have the power to push around a Republican majority in which conservatives are ascendant. But a Democratic majority may win all sorts of new spending measures from a weakened President who never vetoed a bill even at the height of his power.

Our View: Keep the House Republican

Pence a standout

 

Here is an article by a local newspaper in Mike Pence's district talking about him being a standout among Republicans in Congress.


U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, who represents Indiana’s 6th District, is a standout among Republicans in Congress. He’s an easy choice for a conservative voter to support in the Republican primary. Not only does he talk about controlling spending, he votes to limit spending, too.

The best example came in 2003, when Pence voted against the Medicare prescription-drug benefit.

Then he looked like a principled maverick. Now he looks prescient, given the frustrating complexity of the system, its relatively low enrollment and its cost – $700 billion to $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, depending on who’s doing the estimating.

That isn’t the only lonely stand he’s taken against the rise in spending. Last fall, Pence was a leader in a Republican movement to cut discretionary spending to offset the cost of federal spending for hurricane relief. Last month, he voted against a $92 billion emergency appropriations bill because it included spending for both the Iraq War and hurricane relief and reconstruction.

His critics say his principled stands are easy to take, because he can count on other politicians passing necessary spending. Others say he’s disingenuous to rail against deficits while backing deep tax cuts.

But he remains one of the most faithful proponents of fiscal discipline in Congress.

He’s swimming against the tide in Washington and in his own party, but we’re encouraged that somebody still thinks a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there adds up to real money and is worth fighting about.

Depend on Pence to defend conservatism

Hot-button issues

 

Here is an article on another townhall meeting with Congressman Mike Pence who explains the importance of fiscal and border control.

Larry Moore wanted to learn more about immigration and tax reform.

Those issues brought him to the Richmond Municipal Building Wednesday for a town hall meeting with U.S. Congressman Mike Pence.

"I'm always interested to hear what he has to say, especially about the hot-button issues of the day," Moore said.

The meeting -- which was opened and closed with a prayer in Jesus' name -- brought about 50 people to learn more about what's been going on in the 109th U.S. Congress.

Deficit spending

Pence said about half of the federal budget spending is made up of entitlements(Social Security, Medicaid, etc.) and the other half is "controllable" (meaning non-mandated spending, like the Iraq war).

He said there are two ways to get out of deficit spending -- increase taxes, or a combination of fiscal responsibility and economic growth.

Pence said slowing the growth of entitlements can reduce the federal budget, and he also wants to make President Bush's tax cuts permanent because industries are growing.

Immigration

Pence said he supports immigration to the United States -- as long as people do it legally.

"A nation without borders is not a nation," Pence said. He said he does not want to extend amnesty to people who come to this country illegally, but he thinks Congress won't make any headway on the issue for a while.

"I support legal immigration and believe it's part of the American identity," Pence said. He said just because people find a way to make it into the country, that doesn't mean they have a right to be here.

Pence suggested getting private companies involved with work programs for foreigners -- make people from other countries who want to live here prove they have a job waiting for them in the United States and also prove that they have never broken any U.S. laws or laws from their country.

Pence meeting delves into immigration, tax issues

Pence on the budget

 

Here is an excerpt from an article in the National Journal by David Baumann discussing the budget and conservative congressman Mike Pence's stance to stop out-of-control spending.


Whatever scenarios play out, conservatives and moderates will continue to battle over spending levels -- causing plenty of headaches for GOP leaders. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the chairman of the conservative House Republican Study Committee, is vowing that unless GOP leaders agree to hold floor votes on budget reform legislation, he is prepared to use parliamentary maneuvers to delay appropriations bills.

"If we don't achieve meaningful budget process reform, it's going to be a long, hot summer during the appropriations process," Pence warned.

Who needs a budget plan?

And now, batting right

 

USNews came out with this profile on Mike Pence today titled "And now, batting right."


Rep. Mike Pence compares himself to the old baseball player in the movie The Natural. And it's not, he chuckles, because he's got Robert Redford's good looks.

Like the Redford character, Roy Hobbs, the grizzled home-run hitter who comes back after a long hiatus, the silver-haired Indiana Republican is on a roll after years of trying unsuccessfully to break into the major leagues. "What made him so committed to winning, so committed to the integrity of the game," says the 46-year-old Pence, comparing himself to the fictional sports star, "was it took him so long to get there." Pence ran for Congress in 1988 and lost, ran two years after that and lost. Today, however, in his third term on Capitol Hill, he has emerged as a powerful force, moving Congress further to the right.

Rising star. Known as a "conservative's conservative" on fiscal and social issues, Pence chairs an influential group of more than 110 Republican spending hawks who are winning major victories in their battle for smaller government. Under Pence, the group has broken ranks with party leadership and moderates, often clashing with President Bush. Conservative members love his steady leadership style and intelligent articulation of conservative values. "He is clearly a rising star among conservatives and a man we believe will be a major influential player in the process of reforming our government in the years to come," says Bill Lauderback, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union, which gave Pence its highest score of 100 percent for the past two years.

The latest internecine GOP battle is over next year's $2.8 trillion budget. Moderates want at least $7 billion in extra spending for education, healthcare, and other social programs. But Pence and like-minded colleagues created havoc by coercing the House leadership to crack down on two notorious budgetbusting categories: earmarks (also known as pork barrel projects) and "emergency" items. Members of the Appropriations Committee, which writes the checks, balked at the restrictions. They refused to finish a budget bill, forcing embarrassed House leaders to slink off for their Easter recess with nothing to show. "It's unfortunate," said Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, "that the whims of a few would prevent the overwhelming majority of our members from once again enjoying similar budgetary success."

Pence and his allies, however, can hardly be called "a few." More than 110 House Republicans out of a total of 231 belong to the conservative Republican Study Committee that he chairs. Over 20 Republicans joined the committee since Pence took the helm two years ago. Under Pence's leadership, the committee has played a pivotal role in a House closely divided between Democrats and Republicans. It helped push the House last year to pass the deficit reduction bill, which Bush signed into law, even though Democrats and Republican moderates protested that it cut important spending for healthcare and education.

Most committee members say they elected Pence not only for his leadership abilities but for his media savvy and communication skills. His own communication training began more than a decade ago when he started hosting a call-in radio show, which eventually ran on 18 stations across Indiana. He still guest-hosts a program aired in Indianapolis from microphones set up next to his desk in his office in the Cannon House Office Building.

Pence wants his fellow conservatives to be equally adept on the air. Every Wednesday, when the committee meets in the basement of the Capitol, Pence hosts a "media minute," in which he plays a recent video clip of one of the members. "He's certainly the most effective communicator we've had," says Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, a friend and member of the RSC. "He allows a good debate and has a willingness to hear other voices."

Pence often refers to himself as "a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order." But it wasn't always so. Pence was born into a family of Democratic Irish Catholics in Columbus, Ind. His father, a decorated Army veteran who served in Korea, ran several gas stations. In the late 1970s, Pence first campaigned as a Democrat in Bartholomew County, Ind. Today, he still keeps a box of keepsakes of John F. Kennedy, a hero to his family, in his garage in Columbus.

Conversion. But he began a metamorphosis around the time he went to Hanover College. He converted to evangelical Christianity, and he changed his politics as well--becoming inspired by Ronald Reagan's conservatism of less taxes and smaller government. After graduating from Indiana University law school, he started a quest for Congress that pushed his ideological zeal to the limits with a series of tough attack ads against his opponent. After his two early losses, he had one more conversion: He apologized for the negative ads and took a step back. He ran a regional conservative think tank and began a talk radio career with the Mike Pence Show. The new Pence likened himself to "Rush Limbaugh on decaf," pounding the hard-right policy points, but in a polite tone.

After almost 10 years on the air, the name recognition helped catapult Pence back into politics, and he was elected to represent east-central Indiana in 2000. Pence felt as if he had finally arrived--but with regrets because he missed the Republican takeover in 1994. "I'm like the minuteman," he jokes, "who showed up 10 years late for the Revolution."

Pence moved with his wife, Karen, and three kids to Washington. When he arrived, he was made part of Rep. Tom DeLay's whip team, eventually getting promoted to deputy whip. But Pence was increasingly at odds with the Republican leadership and with President Bush. While he supports the president's policies on Iraq, he has opposed him on a wide range of his other priorities, including the budget, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Dubai ports deal, and the Medicare prescription drug bill. Pence's unwillingness to toe the party line eventually caused him to give up the whip position when he was elected to chair the Study Committee. "No man," he says, "can serve two masters."

Having won re-election by wide margins in 2002 and 2004, Pence is expected to keep his seat in the upcoming election. His name surfaces as a potential future candidate for House leadership, a move he doesn't rule out. But Republican aides and strategists agree that, for now, he is most effective on the outside.

Whether he can pull off the political equivalent of the Natural's towering home runs is anyone's guess. But for the moment, Pence is clearly on a winning streak.

Born: June 7, 1959

Family: Married to Karen.

Children: Michael, Charlotte, and Audrey

Education: Hanover College, B.A., 1981; Indiana University, J.D., 1986

Career: Attorney, 1986-91; president, Indiana Policy Review Foundation, 1991-1993; radio and TV broadcaster, 1992-1999. Congress, 2001-present

And Now, Batting Right

Republicans restricting freedom

 

Here is a great article by George Will expressing the importance of the decision the Republicans made by restricting our freedom in name of "527 Reform Act."

If in November Republicans lose control of the House of Representatives, April 5 should be remembered as the day they demonstrated that they earned defeat. Traducing the Constitution and disgracing conservatism, they used their power for their only remaining purpose -- to cling to power. Their vote to restrict freedom of speech came just as the GOP's conservative base is coming to the conclusion that House Republicans are not worth working for in October or venturing out to vote for in November.

The "problem" Republicans addressed is that in 2004 Democrats were more successful than Republicans in using so-called 527 organizations -- advocacy groups named after the tax code provision governing them. In 2002 Congress passed the McCain-Feingold legislation banning large "soft money" contributions for parties -- money for issue-advocacy and organizational activities, not for candidates. In 2004, to the surprise of no sensible person and most McCain-Feingold supporters, much of the money -- especially huge contributions from rich liberals -- was diverted to 527s. So on April 5, House Republicans, easily jettisoning what little remains of their ballast of belief in freedom and limited government, voted to severely limit the amounts that can be given to 527s.

David Dreier (R-Calif.) explained, sort of. He said he voted against McCain-Feingold because "dictating who could give how much to whom" violated the First Amendment, but now he favors dictating to 527 contributors because McCain-Feingold is not violating the First Amendment enough: It is not "working as it was intended." That is, it is not sufficiently restricting the money financing political advocacy.

Candice Miller (R-Mich.) said that restricting 527s would combat "nauseating ugliness, negativity and hyperpartisanship." Oh, so that is what the First Amendment means: Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech unless speech annoys politicians.

Improving the tone of politics, leveling the playing field, fulfilling the intent of McCain-Feingold -- the reasons for expanding the restrictions on political advocacy multiply.

McCain-Feingold restrictions on the amount, timing and content of political speech were ratified by the Supreme Court, which embraces this perverse idea: Because elected officials are experts about politics, they deserve vast deference when they write rules governing speech about, and campaigns against, elected officials. When the court gave its imprimatur to McCain-Feingold's premise -- that big government should have big power to regulate speech about itself -- it guaranteed that what happened April 5 will happen incessantly: The First Amendment is now permanently in play, its protections to be truncated whenever congressional majorities envision short-term partisan advantages.

The Post, exemplifying the media's hostility to speech rights other than their own, eagerly anticipates the next fiddling. As it crouches behind its media exemption from the restrictions it favors for rival sources of political speech, The Post eggs on the speech regulators and hopes for "future legislation" if money diverted from 527s flows, as surely it will, into other political uses. And so the regulatory regime metastasizes, nibbling away at what McCain-Feingold enthusiasts evidently consider the ultimate "loophole" -- the First Amendment.

Fortunately, the measure the House passed April 5 will not become law this year. Not because Republican senators are too principled to pass it, or because Democrats have a truly principled opposition to it but because Senate Democrats will have 41 votes, enough to block action on it.

The Democrats, who favored McCain-Feingold and now are as cynical as Republicans about defending free speech only when it serves their competitive interests, will someday win control of Congress. Then they can wrap their anti-constitutionalism in the Republicans' April 5 rhetoric. They can say:

"In 2006 you Republicans said that because Democrats have done better than Republicans with 527s, the 527s should be restricted in order to 'level the playing field.' Now we will level the playing field by restoring the 'fairness doctrine' to broadcasting, thereby eliminating conservatives' unfair domination of talk radio."

The 211 Republicans who voted for big-government regulation of speech will have no principled objection. How many principled Republicans remain? Only 18. The following, who voted against restricting 527s:

Roscoe Bartlett (Maryland), Chris Chocola (Indiana), Jeff Flake (Arizona), Vito Fossella (New York), Trent Franks (Arizona), Scott Garrett (New Jersey), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Ernest Istook (Oklahoma), Walter Jones (North Carolina), Steve King (Iowa), Connie Mack (Florida), Cathy McMorris (Washington), Randy Neugebauer (Texas), Ron Paul (Texas), Mike Pence (Indiana), John Shadegg (Arizona) and Lynn Westmoreland (Georgia).

On this remnant of libertarian, limited-government conservatism a future House majority can be built. The current majority forfeited its raison d'etre April 5.

The GOP's Betrayal On Speech

Republicans go soft on budget

 

Here is an article by Robert Bluey of Human Events that explains the frustration of conservatives in our fight for fiscal discipline in Congress.


Congress is in recess and lawmakers are back home, but House Republicans are being hit hard today from the right on the collapse of the budget last week.

This morning’s Wall Street Journal editorial attacking House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis for his refusal to go along with common-sense budget reforms riled him so much that he fired off a don’t-blame-me response to the Journal this afternoon.

In the meantime, leading conservative blogs RedState.com and Townhall.com’s Capitol Report criticized Lewis for the budget debacle. But perhaps most troublesome for Lewis was the decision by the American Conservative Union to launch an attack late this afternoon -- not only on him, but the entire House GOP leadership.

Here’s the message sent by Bill Lauderback, executive vice president of ACU:

It is becoming ever more apparent that the House Republican leadership is dangerously out of touch with the responsibilities of governing. The latest refusal by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Majority Leader John Boehner, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt to honor their commitment to conservatives on the budget is tantamount to surrender. The refusal by Jerry Lewis, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, to rein in spending is a slap in the face to the efforts of conservative House members, led by Republican Study Committee Chairman Mike Pence, to re-instill fiscal sanity.

While it is rare for ACU to send our members an editorial, we believe that the below one, from today’s Wall Street Journal, merits your attention.

Lewis’ response to the Journal probably won’t quell the anger. His letter attempts to shift the blame away from his committee to others in the House -- just as Rep. Jack Kingston (R.-Ga.), also an appropriator, attempted to do during a call with bloggers Monday, saying the Appropriations Committee had become the “whipping boy.”

Conservatives support comprehensive reform of the budget process as Lewis and Kingston talk about, but so far it’s their Appropriations Committee that is standing in the way. Such was the case last week on a proposal to budget for emergency spending.

What can you do? Call and e-mail Lewis and demand that he not stand in the way of common-sense reforms supported by the Republican Study Committee.

Human Events

Illegals want Amnesty, We want borders

 

Here is a quote from Mike Pence about the current protesting of the illegal immigrants in America.



"I have tremendous compassion for those who wish to make a better life for themselves here in America. However, these protests do not change the fact that a nation without borders is not a nation."



-Mike Pence

Hoosiers in Congress say their opinions weren't changed by immigration protests

Republicans gone "AWOL"

 

Here is an article by The Washington Times on 527s and Mike Pence's strong stance to defend the 1st Amendment.

Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), the conservative caucus in the House of Representatives, accused the vast majority of his Republican colleagues and fellow RSC members of going "AWOL" on the First Amendment's provision prohibiting Congress from passing a law "abridging the freedom of speech." What made Mr. Pence's charge so disturbing was its utter accuracy. Moreover, according to Ben Ginsberg, a campaign-finance lawyer involved in Republican politics at the highest levels, the action in the House may have negatively affected GOP electoral prospects this November by sending the wrong signals to prospective Republican contributors.

Mr. Pence's "AWOL" comment referred to the fact that 211 House Republicans voted on Wednesday to drastically curtail the ability of American citizens to exercise their free-speech rights through so-called 527 political committees, whose name derives from the section of the IRS code under which they are organized. By sending the unmistakable signal to Republican donors that 527 organizations are a very big part of America's perceived political problems, Mr. Ginsberg perceptibly noted, House Republicans may be creating the "worst of all worlds" for themselves -- a world in which Democrats continue to energetically contribute to liberal 527s and Republicans remain reluctant to support conservative 527s.

After Congress misguidedly banned national party committees from accepting large, unregulated "soft-money" contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions effective after the 2002 election, the money predictably flowed elsewhere. The 527 committees, which are tax-exempt interest groups organized for the purposes of issue advocacy and voter mobilization, became the natural repositories for the soft money that parties were no longer able to accept.

Interestingly, the national political-party committees raised about $500 million in soft money, which was evenly divided between the two parties, during each of the two federal election cycles (1999-2000 and 2001-2002) that preceded the soft-money ban. The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonpartisan campaign-finance research organization, has calculated that federal-oriented 527 committees spent $479 million during the 2003-2004 cycle, an amount nearly identical to the soft-money totals of the two previous cycles.

In large part because Democratic and other liberal-oriented 527s began their aggressive fund-raising and organizational activities long before Republican-oriented 527s went into serious action during the 2003-2004 period, liberal 527s thoroughly outraised and outspent their conservative counterparts. Nor was Republican fund-raising helped by the fact that the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign was lobbying the Federal Election Commission to radically limit the 527s even as Harold Ickes was raking in seven- and eight-figure contributions to Democratic 527s. CRP data reveal that the net expenditures of 527 interest groups categorized as "Democratic/Liberal" totaled $209 million in the 2003-2004 cycle. That was nearly $100 million more than the $112 million spent by "Republican/Conservative" 527s.

The 527s created by labor unions, which customarily direct more than 90 percent of their political spending to Democratic causes and candidates, spent another $105 million, according to the CRP. Other Democratic-leaning 527 categories (environment, human rights and women's issues) spent an additional $35 million. The CRP data closely approximate figures from another watchdog, the Campaign Finance Institute, which has estimated that pro-Democratic 527s spent nearly 80 percent of all 527 money. That was nearly four times what pro-Republican 527s spent.

In their haste to associate themselves with any legislative measure that could be remotely spun to embrace "reform," more than 90 percent of House Republicans, including 85 percent of RSC members, abandoned the same constitutional principles that the vast majority of Republicans had embraced for years in opposing the restrictions on free speech embodied in the various versions of McCain-Feingold campaign-finance legislation. Having been out-hustled by Democrats and other liberals, House Republicans were also undoubtedly motivated by their own perceived financial self-interest, which regrettably trumped their constitutional principles.

Meanwhile, the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign continues to agitate in federal court against the free-speech rights of the administration's opponents and supporters. President Bush could have saved his party a lot of grief by keeping his 2000 campaign promise to veto McCain-Feingold. Fortunately for the principle of free speech, Senate Democrats, who almost certainly will act as hypocritically as their House colleagues, appear poised to pursue their current financial self-interest by blocking similar legislation in the Senate. Besides, as Mr. Ginsberg cogently observed, why would Democratic leaders give Sen. John McCain, the front-runner for the Republican 2008 presidential nomination, the opportunity to shape the financial and political battlefields for the 2008 election?

The First Amendment and 527s

Republicans forget what the 1st Amendment stands for

 

This week Republican leadership in the House passed a bill that intrudes on the 1st Amendment of "freedom of speech." Mike Pence and fellow conservatives stood strong to fight against the 527 reform act to keep our freedoms alive. Here is an article by Human Events on this battle.


House conservatives have been fighting a losing battle in Congress lately. Three weeks ago they narrowly lost a vote to offset a $91.8 billion spending bill. Yesterday they bucked their party leaders again in a losing effort, voting against the so-called 527 Reform Act.

Eighteen House Republicans, led by conservative Republican Study Committee Chairman Mike Pence (Ind.), came up short, 218-209, when six Democrats broke ranks with their party to vote for the bill.

Relatively unknown before the 2004 presidential campaign, 527s became a popular vehicle for voter mobilization and advertising. On the left, MoveOn.org used donations from liberal billionaires George Soros and Peter Lewis to attack President Bush, and on the right, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth used its millions to criticize Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.).

“Some in Washington want to rein in 527’s with greater government control and regulation, and that is certainly their right and a path that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act,” Pence said after the vote. “However, I believe instead of greater government control of political speech, more freedom is the answer and that is why I could not support this bill.”

Pence had planned to offer his own less-restrictive 527 bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Albert Wynn (D.-Md.), but he was thwarted when the House Rules Committee allowed no amendments.

The 527 Reform Act (H.R. 513) requires 527 groups to abide by the same donation limits as other political committees: $25,000 per year for voter mobilization and $5,000 per year for federal elections. Money is now expected to flow to 501(c)4 organizations, which have fewer disclosure requirements.

The bill faced widespread opposition from conservative groups, especially the Club for Growth. The American Conservative Union made an unusual announcement in advance of the House vote that it would score the bill as part of its annual congressional ratings.

But it came too late to make a difference. House GOP leaders rallied around H.R. 513 as part of their reform agenda. It still must win passage in the Senate.

Despite the setback, conservatives noted that if it were not for six Democrats, they would have won. The same could be said last month when 29 House conservatives demanded the $91.8 billion spending bill be offset. But 22 Democrats voted with Republicans, sparing Majority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) embarrassment after his first big vote.

House Republicans Who Voted ‘No’ on 527 Reform Bill
Roscoe Bartlett (R.-Md.)
Chris Chocola (R.-Ind.)
Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.)
Vito Fossella (R.-N.Y.)
Trent Franks (R.-Ariz.)
Scott Garrett (R.-N.J.)
Louie Gohmert (R.-Tex.)
Jeb Hensarling (R.-Tex.)
Ernest Istook (R.-Okla.)
Walter Jones (R.-N.C.)
Steve King (R.-Iowa)
Connie Mack (R.-Fla.)
Cathy McMorris (R.-Wash.)
Randy Neugebauer (R.-Tex.)
Ron Paul (R.-Tex.)
Mike Pence (R.-Ind.)
John Shadegg (R.-Ariz.)
Lynn Westmoreland (R.-Ga.)

18 Principled House Conservatives Fall Short in Quest to Defeat 527 Bill

Pence fights against campaign finance reform

 

This week will be key in finding out if certain Republican are going to continue to limit our freedom of speech and oppress the American people of being a part of the political process under campaign finance reform. Here is an article discussing the happenings this week on this issue.

WASHINGTON -- Republicans expect a close House vote on legislation that would put contribution limits on the nonprofit political groups that proliferated during the 2004 presidential election, chiefly to the benefit to Democrats.

The legislation, which could come to a vote late Wednesday, would require groups known as 527s - made famous by the multimillion-dollar contributions of liberal businessman George Soros and the anti-John Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - to register as political committees and abide by the same contribution limits as those committees.

In an unusual turnaround, clean government groups have joined Republicans in backing the bill while some conservative organizations are allying with Democrats in opposing it.

The measure, if it passes, would give lawmakers returning home for the two-week Easter recess a way to show they are doing something about money in politics. The Senate last month passed legislation aimed at reducing the unhealthy influence of lobbyists on the lawmaking process, but the House lobbying bill isn't expected to be ready until after the recess.

The 527 groups, named for the section of the tax code that describes them, are unincorporated political organizations currently exempt from regulation by the Federal Election Commission. They became prominent after Congress passed the 2002 campaign finance law that banned federal candidates and the national parties from accepting unlimited donations from individuals, unions and corporations.

Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., who with Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., sponsored both the 2002 act and the 527 bill, argued before the House Rules Committee Tuesday that 527s had become a "huge loophole" in the effort to control campaign spending. He said that in the 2004 election just 25 wealthy individuals had contributed $142 million to the get-out-the-vote and political advocacy activities of such groups.

But Democrats, who overwhelmingly supported the 2002 act, are generally against the Shays bill, charging that Republicans are trying to dry up a source of income for groups that in 2004 strongly favored Democratic causes.

"There is no doubt that this is a targeted bullet at what the Republicans perceive to be their enemies," said House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Democrats argued it was unfair to restrict 527s and not other tax-exempt groups that could become channels for political contributions. Among those are business groups, such as chambers of commerce, that might tend to support Republican causes.

But several groups that usually side with Democrats on campaign finance issues voiced strong support for the 527 bill.

The Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. Public Interest Research Group wrote lawmakers that the bill was "necessary to prevent 527 political groups from spending unlimited soft money on campaign ads and partisan voter mobilization efforts to influence federal elections."

But David Keating, executive director of the conservative Club for Growth, said the bill was "politically stupid" for Republicans and "misguided because I don't think it will help Republicans" and may lead to controls on other, more friendly groups.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a leader of House conservatives, also warned of "whack-a-mole in American politics," where Congress has to keep going after the latest source of political funding.

Pence was pushing amendments to the bill that would remove the aggregate limit on contributions an individual can make to federal candidates and allow parties to spend unlimited amounts of regulated hard money on their own candidates, even when they coordinate such spending with the candidates.

But Common Cause and the other advocacy groups strongly opposed Pence's proposals, saying they would gut campaign finance laws. Shays said that if the Pence proposals are incorporated, "then the whole bill dies."

House considers nonprofit spending bill

Mike Pence on NPR

 

NPR did a story on Mike Pence discussing how districts are set up to give incumbents the huge advantage to retain their office seat. You can listen to this story on the link below.

Districts Give Congressional Incumbents a Big Advantage

A true leader

 

Here is an article by Adam Graham talking about the importance of getting a true leader to help solve our problems America is currently facing.

In my last column, I wrote that the Nationalist movement threatens to create a third party that will challenge the GOP in 2008. In this column, I turn to address the dangers that the new Nationalist movement faces.

First, the most obvious is the need to keep nuts out of positions of leadership and prominence. In any type of movement on immigration, there's always going to be a few racists thrown in the mix of a lot of good, decent folks. It's also a good idea to encourage Hispanic Advocates of Immigration Reform to be front and center on the issue.

The second problem that nationalists face is the lack of a positive vision. Nationalists have plans to fix our borders and get illegal immigrants out of the country. What is lacking is a positive vision. There's plenty of anger, but little of those qualities that win elections. Where are the positive ideas and a vision of the country? Without these elements, a Nationalist Party will be pure angst on display and angst doesn't win elections or leave a lasting legacy behind.

I'd love to hear some of the leaders of the anti-immigration movement talk about American greatness, about embracing those immigrants who are here and bringing them to the American dream. I'd like to hear about positive stances on issues outside of immigration. Single issue candidates sound like broken records and fail to speak to the concerns of all Americans.

I do not say that a Nationalist Party is an unavoidable outcome of our current impasse. It need not be if the Republican Party wakes up. Sadly, it appears that a cloud of cluelessness hangs over our party's leaders as they push plans that are good for big business and bad for American society. John McCain suggested those outraged by hundreds of thousands waving Mexican flags in the streets of America, blocking highways and flying the Mexican Flag over an upside down Old Glory were racists. If this man is to be our nominee and our leader, then whether we like it or not, the party will be over.

Our national leadership must come to their senses and face reality. It is idiotic to blither on about us being a nation of immigrants when the current mass illegal immigration runs counter to the Spirit of America's immigrant forbearers. Past Immigrants came to become part of America's culture and society and embrace its highest values. Today's illegal masses come to get cheap jobs, welfare, and to force American society to adapt to their culture and language. Some dream of Reconquista, the idea of Mexico retaking the Southwest. To compare the current wave of law breakers to hard working America-loving Immigrants from all nations is an insult and those who understand the situation in America's Southwest aren't buying it.

As I look at the GOP, I see a Party that is fractured and stretched to the breaking point, whose field of candidates includes no one who understands the situation we're in. We're in desperate need of a leader who understands these issues and can appeal to the entire party, such as Indiana Rep. Mike Pence (R-In.)

If the GOP is to survive, it must stand firm for our nation's sovereignty and border security. If it doesn't do that, it will not only face extinction, it will deserve it.

The Challenge of Nationalism