Posted on 05/17/2006 7:01:52 AM PDT by Gipper08
President Bush and Senate Republicans have given conservatives little to cheer about lately, but over in the House of Representatives, a band of conservative Republicans have held firm in conservative principles.
Thanks to the hard work and determination of Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, conservatives still have hope for the future of the GOP.
Pence, the 2005 HUMAN EVENTS Man of the Year and the first member of Congress to start a blog, spoke to a group of 16 conservative bloggers during our weekly bloggers’ briefing today in Washington. Despite the troubles facing his party, Pence offered a positive, can-do message.
If Republicans are to have a chance this November, Pence said the GOP needed to get back to the basics on three issues:
Limited government Fiscal discipline Rule of law “If we fail to do these things,” Pence told us, “I think this fall could bode very ominous for the life of the conservative movement.”
When asked if a GOP loss of Congress might awaken the party, Pence said such an outcome would be disastrous. He cited the Democrats’ willingness to increase the size of government and abandon the U.S. effort in Iraq as reasons frustrated Republicans ought to think twice before pulling the lever for a Democrat this fall.
Pence said he foresaw conservatives’ displeasure early in President Bush’s first term when a group of 25 House Republicans stood firm in opposition to the No Child Left Behind Act. He said it happened again with the Medicare prescription drug bill—the largest entitlement since LBJ.
Other topics on Pence’s mind:
He opposes the 527 “reforms” supported by House leadership. Pence told us Republicans are headed down a path that will eventually restrict nearly all freedom afforded to Americans when it comes to elections.
He said Republicans need to stand up for a free-market economy. The GOP’s willingness to go along with price-gauging legislation was a mistake, Pence said.
It’s inexcusable that Republicans aren’t able to get a bill passed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.
When asked about immigration, he said, “It’s a safe bet the Senate will produce a bad bill on any topic.” He said House Republicans are resigned to the fact that the Senate will pass a bill that includes some form of amnesty. Coming soon: Pence plans a major speech at the Heritage Foundation next week to make the case for a guest-worker plan. Yes, you read that correctly. Pence will throw his weight behind the Krieble Foundation’s guest-worker plan, which would require illegal immigrants to leave the United States and then apply for re-entry. More on that later.
UPDATE -- 10:45 p.m.: A couple other bloggers at today’s meeting have reports on Pence’s talk.
Larry Scholer of the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Blog:
Pence focused his remarks on campaign finance reform, immigration reform, and energy. He has long been an opponent of campaign finance reform, from McCain-Feingold to the 527 reform recently passed by the House. For Pence, more freedom is the answer to 527 reform. Moreover, he worries that restricting political speech leads down the slippery slope to even more government intrusion in the daily lives of Americans. "We are on the road to serfdom in the American political debate," he said.
Tim Chapman of Townhall’s Capitol Report:
Pence drove home the need for "environmentally responsible oil exploration" and his idea is one worth considering. As gas prices continue to rise, those who oppose ANWR drilling will be forced to reconcile their cries for lower gas prices with their insistance that America not explore oil resources within our own borders.
Mr. Bluey is editor of Human Events Online.
The line about divorcing his wife on her deathbed is phony.
Who do you want to run in '08?
Pence/Sessions or Sessions/Pence?
You know, in a thread about Romney, I was putting that same question to the folks that were hammering him. The point is well-taken, and I certainly don't want to be a naysayer.
In fact, I would say of those that are looking but not for sure running, Newt would actually be near the top for me. I would personally prefer Newt to Allen, who appears to be the "conservative" front runner.
Good grief. I would think that in a country of 265 million people, some 50 million of whom are probably legitimately conservative, we could do better than George Allen. How I wish Charlton Heston were not old and frail.
Now, all that said, I would definitely like to see Pence run. But I fear a) that he won't, and b) if he does, he will no longer be a Congressman and then he will retire from public life. This is unacceptable as Pence simply must carry our banner someday.
As between those that are currently running, I like Giuliani least. I like Romney, as I think he is a capable and serious human being. I fear he is not a conservative. I like Allen less, because though he might be instinctively conservative, I fear he is not a capable or serious human being.
I like Newt a lot and certainly wish he were our Speaker, or that he had served his full 8 years. But Newt is far from perfect as previously noted. He may never be President, but he has a role to play, I think.
At the end of the day, I want a man who can say that he is against prescription drugs, against McCain Feingold, for the war on terror, against wild spending, for entitlement reform, pro life and pro marriage (period...no exceptions...as if we should be trying to nuance these issues), and for appointing Thomas/Alito/Scalia types to the courts. And that he can do all of the above without looking like a crank. So far only Pence can do that. Which is a sad commentary....
good stuff!
Does Sessions want to run?
I don't know; I say we draft him.
Sadly, you may be right. We are the party, after all, that nominated Gerald Ford in 1976 and Bob Dole in 1996.
Which means that we better get ready for President Hillary. If that happens, though, I anticipate that there will be a conservative revival and our guy will sweep her out in 12.
What do you know about him?
Keep your chin up American
http://www.misterpolitics.com/videos.asp?video=MP-reagan.mov
"There is nothing wrong with America that Americans can't fix"- Reagan
"America's best days lie ahead. You ain't seen nothing yet"- Reagan
"All great change in America begins at the dinner table."
—Farewell Address to the Nation, The White House, January 11, 1989
"Allen should not be supported. He's already talking about making an official congressional apology for slavery."
This is, by the way, pathetic. But not at all surprising.
As if a giving the descendants of slaves yet another opportunity to have a heightened sense of indignation will anyone some good.
The apology for this came in the form of amending the Constitution. But given what I have heard come out of Allen's mouth about his knowledge of con law, I'm not sure he even knows what the 13th amendment is. For example, he keeps saying that Roe v Wade has been interpreted in such a way as to make outlawing abortion by a state unconstitutional. Hmmm...I'm not sure that it's an issue of interpretation, Senator. That is precisely what this diabolical case says.
Now, to Allen's credit, I know that Fred Barnes and others are saying that he is really being the genius here and making a nice little rhetorical tap dance in order to advance the life agenda - the point being that most Americans (erroneously) think overturning R v W would outlaw abortion. Therefore most Americans are not for that. So, Allen comes along and says that he is not for overturning R v W, BUT just for a reinterpretation of it. If he's serious, then he's not pro life as there is no way R v W can be "reinterpreted" to allow passage of things like that SD law (which incidentally Allen wouldn't answer whether he would sign or not...even McCain said he would sign it if he were governor of SD!). Alternatively, Allen is NOT serious and knows full well that he is trying to pull a fast one on the American people by trying to be pro life without being offensive. Even if he is sort of a Rovian genius, I don't think that is what this country needs.
We need a straight up man who will use the Constitutional authority of the Presidency as well as the bully pulpit to simply advance a conservative agenda.
From what I have seen, Allen is not that man.
(As always, though, if he is our nominee...I'll vote for him, just as I voted for Dole. Hell, I even had a Dole bumper sticker).
Newt Gingrich is a train wreck. He needs to go home and teach.
Mike Pence is the future.
I love Ronald Reagan.
Why every Republican politician doesn't try to be just like him, I simply do not understand.
A while back I posted his great Time for Choosing speech in 64. It is unbeleivable!
I'd like to hear arguments from anyone who thinks Newt is too damaged to run.
The only thing I would say is family values...he has none. but if we are going left on that topic than I would take him for the War on Terror. I would still think he would be horrible example for the American families. How could he possibly be able to discuss gay marriage when he has made a mocary of marriage himself. That is my only critism of him.
Beautiful.
Placemark.
Please tell me you don't mean Pete Sessions. He's a reliable conservative voter, but he doesn't have the intellect to be President. Also, if you ask me, he's a little wierd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.