Election 2008

MIKE PENCE : CONSERVATIVE OF THE YEAR


With this year coming to a close, many conservatives have thought to themselves about the state of the conservative movement. Where have the ideas and principles of Ronald Reagan, which once were the inspiration that strengthened our party and our nation, gone? Why has our ruling majority succumbed to Big Government Republicanism? Who will carry the Reagan mantle and lead our conservative movement in these trying times? These questions have been at the forefront of every conservative’s conscience.


Ladies and gentleman, there is good news. Conservatives this New Year can now be jolly and cheerful as a national voice has emerged this past year to lead the conservative movement with moral clarity and unwavering principles. Indiana’s Mike Pence has provided Congress with conservative leadership that has garnered victories and led our ruling majority back to the right, earning him the honor of “Man of the Year” by Human Events.
Entering the House in 2000, Mike Pence’s conservative leadership made an immediate impact as he became one of only five freshmen in the past fifty years to chair a subcommittee. As a freshman committed to downsizing the scope and influence of the federal government, Pence made a bold stand against the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. In only his second term, Mike Pence became a deputy majority whip, a feat that most politicians spend their entire career to achieve. One primary responsibility of this new position was to gather votes among his Republican colleagues for legislation that the Republican majority had sponsored. It was the Medicare Bill of 2003, the largest socialized medicine bill to ever pass through the halls of Congress, that became the last straw and the catalyst that would go on to form the character of the hero and statesman.
Mike Pence valiantly led the revolt against the Medicare Bill along with 24 other House conservatives. Despite the band of rebels’ efforts, led by Pence, the longest vote in Congressional history went in favor of the GOP leadership and Big Government Republicanism. Afterwards, the six founding members of the Republican Study Committee approached Pence to take charge of the conservative caucus. Mike Pence is so humble that he demanded an election for the position. Because of his humility and his effective leadership, Pence was unanimously selected by over 100 House conservatives to chair the caucus. Immediately Pence went to the GOP leadership and willingly stepped down from his whip position while quoting scripture, “you can not serve two masters.” Pence became the first person in fifty years to willingly step down from leadership position.
With Pence’s strong and determined leadership, the RSC immediately turned the tide in the House this session. In March, Pence and his band of committed conservatives led the charge for budget reform. This principled stance led to House leadership adopting their budget-process reform giving House members the opportunity to vote to defend the budget on the House floor. This became a big victory for Pence and his colleagues as the RSC now became a viable and credible caucus for legislative authority. GOP leadership soon recognized that all legislation must now come through Mike Pence and the RSC in order to pass.
Immediately after Pence led a group of Congressman over to Iraq to build the morale among the troops, Hurricane Katrina hit our shores and our federal government responded. Pence and his conservative caucus also responded by calling for a press conference to announce “Operation Offset,” their plan for federal spending cuts of over $900 billion to offset Katrina spending. This bold move led to the chastisement of Pence by the House leadership. Yet, in his calm and ever graceful presence, Pence’s moral stance eventually convicted House leadership and led them to adopt many of the RSC’s proposed spending cuts.
Mike Pence does not only clearly and optimistically articulate our conservative message of limited government, fiscal discipline, strong national defense and traditional moral values, but his leadership effectively challenges his colleagues and GOP leadership to return to the principles in which our party and nation was founded upon. Pence has rightfully emerged as the leader of the conservative movement as his message and his stances have caused the GOP to side with the principles of the conservative base that has elected our governing majority.
Mike Pence boldly proclaimed in an article by Human Events, “I believe in my heart that this generation of Americans is going to produce leadership that will sit in the Oval Office and look the American people in the eye as adults, and say the party is over. We simply cannot continue to write hot checks on the backs of our children and grandchildren. We need to lay the problem out with moral and fiscal authority, to explain the truth of the matter, and treat the American people as the thoughtful and courageous people they are.” We couldn’t agree with you more Mr. Pence.
Pence, who calls himself, “A Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order” has inspired our nation to build upon the ideas and principles of Reagan. He has given hope to those of us who see our party being destroyed by careerism and Big Government Republicanism. He has truly led the charge to rejuvenate our conservative principles in our nation’s capital and to renew conservatism in the hearts and minds of the American people. And it shall be the efforts of this conservative leader that will strengthen our party and our nation once again, as we remain that shining city on a hill with 2008 on the horizon.

Health Care chaos

by Deroy Murdock

New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a member of the Advisory Board of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Choice.

The Republican Congress can't seem to touch health care without making America sick. While Health Savings Accounts are a recent plus, the long-feared Medicare drug benefit premiered Jan. 1 to widespread panic.

Seniors are confused and frustrated, while fiscal conservatives stand aghast as tax dollars fly from the Treasury like bats fleeing a cave.

Congress can redeem itself with a simple and cost-free cure rather than a expensive complication. The Health Care Choice Act, sponsored by Republicans Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, would let American consumers buy health insurance across state lines, as they now may shop coast to coast for mortgages.

Shadegg-DeMint would let insurers licensed in one state sell to individuals in the other 49. As such, Congress would use its constitutionally enumerated powers to liberate interstate commerce and transform 50 separate, closed medical coverage markets into one open, national health-insurance market.

The proposal applies to state-regulated health plans, roughly 55 percent of the insured marketplace and purchased primarily by small businesses and individuals, according to America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade association for the health insurance industry. The other 45 percent of the insurance market are health plans purchased by large employers and labor unions, among others, and, as well as federal programs like Medicaid and Medicare, would not be affected.

"Two-thirds of the uninsured have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and most cite unaffordability as the top reason for why they are uninsured," said Mr. Shadegg, who hopes to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, as House majority leader. "Until consumers can purchase their health care like their auto, homeowners, or life insurance, we won't reform health care; we will only re-regulate it."

"Just as Delaware became a magnet for banking, some states will become magnets for health insurance," predicts David Gratzer, a physician and Manhattan Institute senior fellow, and one of this idea's earliest proponents. "People seem to understand intuitively that it doesn't matter whether their checks come from Delaware or New York or California. Likewise, the issues around health insurance are cost and availability rather than state of origin."

Location matters. A health policy for a single Pennsylvanian costs roughly $1,500 annually. Cross the Delaware into New Jersey, as George Washington did in 1776, and a similar health plan costs about $4,000, thanks to state regulations.

"When doctors worsen a patient's condition, we call it an iatrogenic ailment," Mr. Gratzer notes. "We lack an equivalent term for when politicians aggravate a problem."

By mandating benefits, state legislators have swelled the uninsured numbers. As Victoria Craig Bunce and J.P. Wieske explained in their January 2005 report for the Council for Affordable Health Insurance: "Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, if you can't afford a Lexus loaded with options, you have to walk."

Making every health policy cover acupuncture, marriage therapy, or in vitro fertilization, as some states do, looks less compassionate when such adornments drive the humble from the market. CAHI estimates state mandates can raise insurance prices 20-45 percent.

"Guaranteed issue" rules, which let people wait until they ail to purchase coverage, also boost prices. Ditto "community rating." It slaps the same government-controlled price on insurance for everyone -- young or old, fit or fat -- in a given jurisdiction. This is as idiotic as charging 16-year-old boys and 60-year-old widows the same auto insurance rates.

Economics aside, Mr. Gratzer praises Shadegg-DeMint's clinical potential: "The more people who are covered the better. That means fewer people hesitate to get tests or follow up with physicians. Eventually, that will lead to a healthier population."

Critics argue letting consumers shop for health insurance will launch a dreaded "race to the bottom" as Americans buy inexpensive plans from unscrupulous insurers in unregulated states. But which states, precisely, let health insurers operate like numbers rackets? Of course, consumers could avoid questionable plans in clueless jurisdictions by patronizing reputable, sensibly supervised providers.

So, what's the cost? Nothing. Unlike nearly every act of this Congress, this proposal spends no tax dollars. Your wallet is safe. For now.

Democrats routinely complain 45 million Americans lack health insurance. Many are between jobs, young, or more prosperous, and decide to forgo insurance. Still, Democrats correctly call this a serious concern for many Americans. The Shadegg-DeMint proposal could be a key solution to this problem.

Democrats should embrace this Republican idea. If they would rather deny the uninsured an expanding array of lower-cost health-coverage options, let them say so this election year.

Sanford is not a communist

I DON’T want people to lose sight of who they’re talking to, and I sound like a half communist by the time I’ve laid out all these different options,” said Gov. Mark Sanford at a pre-speech briefing on his State of the State address Wednesday.
“... which I’m obviously not,” he added with an easy laugh, the same laugh he uses when he calls me a “socialist,” which he does with some frequency.
I should add some context.
First, the governor isn’t any kind of communist — half, quarter or full. Nor am I a socialist; he just says that because he’s such a thoroughgoing libertarian, and I’m not. I’m sort of in the middle on the whole small-government-versus-big-government thing. Government should be as big or small as we the people, acting through our elected representatives, decide it should be, and whether taxes rise or fall should depend upon the situation.
The governor was mock-concerned about being perceived as a demi-Marxist because in his speech, he was actually taking a more pragmatic view of the whole tax-and-spend thing. While insisting that if lawmakers swap a sales tax increase for a property tax reduction it must be revenue-neutral or even an overall decrease, he went on to speak about the need to consider other aspects of our overall tax system. In other words, he was to an extent embracing our position that tax reform must be comprehensive.
He spoke positively of impact fees to transfer the cost of growth to new development, and proposed to “take the opportunity to look at (sales tax) exemptions that are not serving their purpose.”
Mr. Sanford tiptoed repeatedly around the question of whether he considers property tax relief — which conventional wisdom holds is Job One in this election year — really needs to happen in 2006.
His fancy footwork on that went over the heads of many legislators — the first time they interrupted him with applause for a policy statement was on page 21 of a 24-page speech, when he said, “We think this can be the year of property tax relief....”
The solons clapped like crazy, and I had to wonder why.
Can be? Not will be? What did he mean by that? Back at that luncheon briefing with editorial page editors, Charleston Post and Courier Editor Barbara Williams tried for several minutes to pin him down on that. Finally, with a somewhat exasperated tone, she said: “Are you pushing for it this year? This is what I’m asking. Are you going to be one of those who says we’ve got to absolutely do something this year?”
“Do you see that written in here?” the governor asked.
“No,” she said.
After a grunt that sort of sounds like “Yeah” on my recording, he concluded, “But that’s as much as I’m going to say.”
But even though he refuses to declare himself clearly as part of this headlong rush to placate angry homeowners before November, the governor need not fear that anyone will erect a bust of him alongside Lenin’s (assuming anyone still has a bust of Lenin).
Never mind that he has stopped saying overtly dismissive things about public education. Nor should you attach much importance to the fact that he keeps saying things like, “This is not about some philosophical jihad that says government is bad and the private sector is good.”
Make no mistake: Mark Sanford is still a libertarian to his core. It’s hard-wired into his reflexive responses, even while he’s trying to reach out to folks to the “left” of him by repeatedly citing Thomas Friedman.
Check out the one most radical proposal in his speech.
This is a man who ran for office on a plan to restructure South Carolina’s government so that each branch can exercise its separate, enumerated powers, with proper checks and balances. So you’d think he’d understand the way the system should work.
And yet, he proposes to undermine the central deliberative principle underlying the republican form of government devised by our nation’s Founders. He would do this by asking voters to approve a change in the state constitution that would set a specific formula for future spending growth, regardless of what future needs might be.
Does that sound good to you? Well, fortunately, George Washington and James Madison and Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton et al. realized that you couldn’t conduct the complex business of running a government — even one firmly rooted in the consent of the governed — through simple, up-or-down plebiscites. They knew that we would need to delegate the business of deciding what needed to be done through government, how much it would cost, and how to pay for it. And that if we didn’t like the decisions delegates made, we could elect somebody else.
If you ask most people, without context, whether they want to limit government spending — yes or no, no in-between — they will of course say “yes.” If you ask me that, I’ll say yes, and mean it.
But if you ask me whether I think this state is adequately meeting its duty to, for instance, keep our highways safe, I’ll say “no.” And if you ask me whether insufficient funds might be a factor in that failure, I’ll say “yes.” And if you ask me whether I have the slightest idea what percentage of our state economy the General Assembly would need to devote to that purpose to get the job done in future years, I’d have to say, “Of course not.”
And yet that is the kind of arbitrary judgment that the governor would have us make this fall — and lock into our constitution — with his proposed “Taxpayer Empowerment Amendment” plebiscite.
So never fear: Mark Sanford is still Mark Sanford, and he’s certainly no commie.
If Mark Sanford were not still the supply-side, privatizing, anti-tax, anti-spending guy we’ve all come to know over the past four years, I’d be disappointed in him. I’ve always respected his honesty and consistency. And those are definitely still intact.

Sanford for Governor update

Dear Friend,

Two days ago U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, Congressmen Joe Wilson and Gresham Barrett, along with South Carolina Legislative leaders Speaker Bobby Harrell and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison were gracious enough to stand with me. What they did was not just about their support of me in the next election; it more importantly reflected their support of the ideas that fuel my run for a second term.

Reducing the tax burden on working South Carolinians, limiting government spending, improving education and reforming our government’s structure - so that we create more high-paying jobs and a better quality of life for people in this state is what we have been about, and continue to work on advancing each day.

I write because all too often these days in politics people won’t take a stand, and if you run into them I would ask you to pat them on the back and tell them thanks for doing so.

If you want to see more of what was said, visit the referenced news summary below, or http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4397464.

Sincerely,

Mark

***********************************************************************

Sanford picks up support

(Columbia) January 23, 2006 - Most of South Carolina's Republican Congressional delegation is in Columbia Monday morning to endorse Governor Mark Sanford's re-election bid.

The group members are focused on the future, along with Governor Sanford. Gov. Sanford says, "Changes come slowly and the reason I'm running for a second term is to push these things again."

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham says if South Carolina is going to get what it needs, Sanford needs to be leading the efforts, "The world is in transition, South Carolina is in transition and the only way to be competitive in the 21st century is to reform the way we educate, tax, reform and put new ideas on the table. And Mark Sanford will do that."

Graham was joined Monday by U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, Second District Representative Joe Wilson and Third District Congressman Gresham Barrett.

Senator DeMint also spoke, "Big ideas take a while to develop and this state is in transition, but I really believe we're on the edge of the greatest period of opportunity we ever had."

Only two Republican members missed Monday morning's news conference, First District Representative Henry Brown and Fourth District Congressman Bob Inglis.

A letter was read from South Carolina House Speaker Bobby Harrell of Charleston, who says he is also endorsing the governor's re-election bid.

The group says their mutual goals this year include reducing the tax burden, limiting government spending, creating jobs and making sure every child has a first class education.

Democrats attack to distract by Senator Demint

HUMAN EVENTS

by Sen. Jim DeMint
Posted Jan 19, 2006

While America begins a new year, Democrats refuse to turn over a new leaf. Democrats are stuck in the same negative attack mode they have been in for years, and Americans are sick of it.

The idea that Senator Reid would attack other senators for taking Abramoff-related donations is laughable. He’s among the top recipients of these funds in Congress, and still refuses to return or donate the money. And now he is using his taxpayer funded office to put out what amounts to campaign attacks. Senator Reid should clean up his own act before lecturing the rest of Congress on ethics.

Democrats shamefully tried to smear the solid reputations of men like Judge Roberts and Judge Alito, and Americans were rightfully appalled. Now they are trying similar personal attacks against senators, but this new smear campaign will also fail.

Democrats look like a bunch of rodeo clowns creating distractions. They are hoping that Americans don’t notice their lack of ideas or solutions for today’s challenges. It’s been months since they promised to unveil a real legislative agenda, yet we still have heard nothing.

The truth is that the Democrats have no agenda. They have no solutions or ideas to solve the problems our nation faces. However, Republicans have a bold agenda to secure America’s future. We made important progress in 2005, and we will build on that success in 2006. We will fight to secure America’s energy independence, maintain a strong economy, create more new jobs, and improve American’s healthcare.

I’ve heard Democrats say, “We can do better.” I agree, Democrats should do better. But at every turn, they choose partisan politics over serious legislative reform. While Democrats play games, Republicans will continue to prove why we are the party of ideas.

THis is good to see.Far too many Republicans refuse to fight back against the Democrats and call a spade a spade.We need 50 more Jim Demints in the Senate and this country would be a far better place.

Pence endorses Shadegg

Myrtle Beach Sun

The Myrtle Beach Sun also picked up the story from the AP

Influential conservative endorses Shadegg for majority leader

The State

WASHINGTON - Arizona Rep. John Shadegg's longshot bid to become the No. 2 GOP leader in the House got a boost Thursday when he was endorsed by the leader of a group of more than 100 conservative lawmakers.

"We need leadership with the energy and vision to steer this Congress back to our roots of fiscal discipline, limited government and traditional values," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
More than one-half of the 110-member committee had endorsed a candidate in the race to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, as majority leader.

About 40 had endorsed the acting majority leader, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the front-runner. Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who claims more than 40 public supporters, counts about 15 members of the study committee in his camp.

The election is set for Feb. 2. It takes 117 votes to win the job.
Pence's move was hardly unexpected; Shadegg is a former study committee chairman. But it shakes up a race that Blunt claims to dominate with more than 80 public supporters.

Pence had said he would stay on the sidelines pending appearances by the candidates before a study committee retreat at the end of the month.

But Pence reversed course, saying it was appropriate to endorse "given the addition of a prominent RSC member to the field and given that many members have already expressed a preference."

Shadegg hopes to win support from the bulk of the remaining undecided conservative lawmakers and hopes to peel away RSC members who have declared for Blunt and Boehner.
DeLay, who stepped aside as majority leader last fall when he was indicted in Texas on charges of laundering campaign funds, announced this month that he would not try to regain the post. Fellow Republicans were concerned about DeLay's ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Pence's committee has become influential in internal House GOP politics and Republican leaders take pains not to cross the group. Last fall, the group successfully pressed GOP leaders to insist on a 1 percent across-the-board cut from appropriations bills to save about $8 billion from agency budgets as a partial offset for spending on hurricane relief.

Meanwhile, Shadegg and Boehner attacked Blunt for turning down invitations from two Sunday morning news programs to debate the issues facing House Republicans.
"At a time when House Republicans are having a serious conversation about our future, the candidate who claims to be the front-runner has so far refused to engage in a debate about how we will reform the House and change the status quo," Boehner and Shadegg said in a statement.

Blunt spokeswoman Burson Taylor said Blunt preferred to discuss the issues privately with House members and "not in front of TV cameras."

Taylor said Blunt's supporters "like what they hear and are not at all bothered that he has taken his ideas directly to them and not Sunday talk show hosts."
The majority leader sets the House floor schedule and drives much of the day-to-day agenda. Whoever wins the race could be well positioned to be the next speaker.

Sanford in money lead

(Columbia-AP) Jan. 10, 2006 - Campaign finance reports show Governor Mark Sanford leading all his re-election challengers in the money race.

Sanford raised more than $900,000 in the fourth quarter. That leaves his campaign with $4.5 million on hand.

Sanford's challenger in the June GOP primary reported raising more than $51,000 in the fourth quarter. That leaves Prosperity physician Oscar Lovelace with more than $45,000 in his campaign account.

Democratic state Senator Tommy Moore reported raising more than $367,000 during the quarter for his bid for governor and has approximately $600,000 on hand.

The other Democratic challenger is Florence Mayor Frank Willis. His campaign raised more than $593,000 during the quarter and had $665,000 on hand. Those figures include a $500,000 loan from Willis to the campaign.

Reports were due to Tuesday at 5:00pm

Breaking News on Majority Leader's race

Shadegg is Officially In...
Here’s his press release:

Phoenix - House Policy Chairman John Shadegg today announced that he will seek the post of House Majority Leader in the elections on February 2.

“For the past several days, I have spoken with members all across our Conference,” Shadegg said. “Based on those conversations, I believe that a majority of Republicans in the House understand the need for real, thorough reform. We must renew our commitment to the principles that won us a majority in the first place: fiscal discipline, smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, returning power to the states, and greater personal freedom.”

At the same time, Shadegg announced he will give up his position as Policy Chairman, the 5th-ranking elected position in the House Republican Leadership.

“I personally believe it is not appropriate to try to retain one position in our elected leadership while running for another. Therefore, I am resigning my position as Policy Chairman. My campaign is based on reform, and reform should begin with an open process.”

Shadegg, who came to Congress in the Revolutionary Class of 1994, was elected by acclamation as Policy Chairman in January of 2005. He has previously served as Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and as a subcommittee chairman on the Homeland Security Committee. He is a long-time member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

“I am aware of the difficulty of winning this election. I face well-organized opponents with tremendous resources,” Shadegg said. “However, I believe in the power of Republican ideas, and I believe that we need a clean break from the scandals of the recent past. I hope every member of the Republican Conference will join with me in the coming days to craft an agenda of reforms that will fully regain the confidence of the American people.”

Here is his letter (PDF) to fellow House Republicans.

Demint making friends

Over at AEI Senator Demint appears to have made a critic.While the author does have some points,it is obvious to any who pays attention that Jim Demint is flat out one of the top five Senators in the nation and he is second only to Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn when it comes to Fiscal Conservatism



The Senate’s Fiscal Conservatism
By Philip Wallach


The permanent campaign has driven a wedge between rhetoric and reality when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Politicians of all stripes offer eager assurances that they will be responsible stewards of the budget, while also promising the services and reduced taxes their constituents demand. Voters like the sound of getting more for less, and are willing to overlook the glaring contradiction such promises entail, because they are able to unreflectively force the costs of their actions onto future generations.



For those who would argue that the foregoing proposition is needlessly gloomy, there happens to be a readily available (and surprisingly unexploited) source of data about where lawmakers say they stand on the issues: their official websites. In this forum, lawmakers have an opportunity to communicate directly with voters, free from media or opponent spin. Having visited all one hundred senators’ sites (six of which I deemed to be basically “substance-free”), I found that 56 of the 94 remaining senators made unequivocal statements to the effect of being fiscal conservatives. This claim transcended party lines, with 20 Democrats, 35 Republicans, and the lone independent all expressing their concern quite robustly. Eleven more senators (two Democrats, nine Republicans) were borderline cases, alluding to their sense of fiscal responsibility without ever supplying much substance to their claims.



Of course, not everyone invoked the phrase “fiscal conservative.” The locutions employed varied from the unintentionally comic (Senator Mike Crapo [R-ID] acts responsibly because his “naturally fiscally conservative nature” compels him to) to the folksy (Senator John Thune [R-SD] declares that “Washington needs to start living within its means.”) to the boastful (at least eight senators claim to be leaders in the field). Former Presidential hopeful John Kerry (D-MA) achieves the highest sense of gravitas, intoning, “Restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington matters to everyone who cares about our future. Whether or not Washington musters even a shred of fiscal discipline will help decide our economic future.”



This is all too true, of course, but unfortunately the federal government will need to muster considerably more than a shred of self-restraint if future generations (read: all Americans under 35) are not to find themselves paying taxes in a nation weighed down hopelessly in burdensome debt during their prime earning years. Most people don’t realize it, but even if we had no deficits today we would still have a serious long-term problem. Although they don’t help, our current woes are caused not by President Bush’s tax cuts or Congress’s pork addiction. Rather, our woes are caused by the juggernaut entitlement programs that both parties, apparently, have come to accept as political fact: Medicare, Social Security, and the less ensconced but equally menacing Medicaid. The projected growth of these programs means that our current fiscal imbalance could only be corrected by massive tax increases or massive entitlement reform, neither of which has any political constituency.



The problem, then, is not that there are senators left who, inexplicably, don’t make any claims of fiscal restraint. I suspect that at this particular moment, most everyone would be willing to self-apply the label of “fiscal conservative” if confronted. The problem is that our permanent campaign, from which senators should hypothetically be insulated by their six-year terms, has made hypocrites out of nearly all those who claim to be deeply concerned about our budgetary woes.



With just two exceptions—Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and Arizona Senator John McCain—every senator’s website emphasizes local spending to various degrees, with five senators (two Democrats, three Republicans) making this their site’s central focus. Jim DeMint (R-SC), to pick on one senator, created a “Democrat Spendometer,” a poster he brought to the floor of the Senate to show just how wasteful the Democrats were in crafting their budget proposals. “We need to wake up,” Senator DeMint’s site declares, continuing, “We can’t just keep spending and taxing.” Having said this, however, Senator DeMint’s press releases announce multi-million dollar grants for South Carolina’s fire and police departments, which are not exactly hallmarks of a legislator out to shrink the federal government.



While the “spendometer” stunt is particularly obnoxious, Senator DeMint is hardly an outlier when it comes to having a double standard. Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) says, “I am also dedicated to balancing the budget and paying off the national debt, which will keep interest rates low and benefit the economy.” He also says, “Arkansas Comes First is more than just a sign on my desk,” and is sure to note that “agriculture plays a defining role in our economy.” Senator Pryor supports subsidizing teacher pay and is dead-set against base closings in his state. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), lately an object of ridicule for his defense of the “bridge to nowhere,” is no different from most senators when he insists that spending projects for Alaska are equal (more equal, even) to those for other states.



Of course, local spending need not conflict with a responsible budget, and any savvy politician will want to tout the federal spending they bring to their constituents. It is just good politics to do so. The painfully obvious consequence of this is that every senator takes a stand for their state, bristling at the idea of cuts, and spending invariably ratchets everupward. It seems that senators can restrain themselves fiscally only once they have already spent enough on their constituents to ensure easy reelection, to which incumbents in this country have come to feel entitled.



Several Republican senators have evolved what may be the most campaign-savvy message when it comes to the budget. This group tells voters that if we would only cut taxes enough, revenues would grow so quickly that we could have a bonanza of spending without going into the red. Senator Conrad Burns’s (R-MT) site, for example, manages to say the following all in one breath: “With a seat on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Burns has been able to bring in over $1 billion in federal funds to the state since he took office. He has been a champion of a fiscally conservative government and a strong voice for lower taxes to create new businesses and more jobs.” Even the most cursory examination of the long-term prospects of the federal budget discovers that this Norquistian worldview is nothing but a puerile fantasy. The only real rationale for such a policy in light of projections of future entitlement growth (non-discriminatory spending) is that we want to adopt a policy of redistribution from future taxpayers to present ones. Put in these terms, however, voters might start questioning just how necessary various spending projects of today really are instead of clamoring incessantly for more.



Meanwhile, there are precious few senators willing to take the plunge and address these topics with the gravity they deserve. Only Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) makes entitlement reform, probably the single most important challenge facing the federal government, one of his most prominent goals. And in terms of voting behavior—in the end, far more important than all of this rhetoric—few senators are willing to risk being attacked as withholding dollars from their constituents. Just four senators—John Cornyn (R-TX), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), McCain, and Gregg—were willing to vote against the famously bloated transportation bill this past summer, and the President (who, though you wouldn’t know it from his behavior, doesn’t need to win reelection ever again) balked at his promise to veto it.



The media’s current spate of attention to the budget is laudable, but everyone should realize that it isn’t a victory to make our senators tell us that they are fiscally responsible. They know this is what we want to hear, and they are perfectly willing to tell it to us. All talk about the budget is disingenuous, or at least extremely poorly considered, if we vote for senators who are only willing to pay lip service to this crisis without acting. Unless they are content to mortgage the future of younger generations, the American people need to start voting for politicians willing to put their lack of money where their mouths are.





Philip Wallach is a research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute.



Author’s Note: After the publication of this piece, Senator Jim DeMint’s staff convinced me that I was unduly critical of their boss and his website, which does have some excellent material on entitlement reform. The great thing about websites (and voting records) is that readers can go see for themselves. P.W.

Barrett backs Boehner

Conservative Clique
Both sides can boast support from the right-leaning members of the Conference.

Blunt has won endorsements from conservative Rep's Jack Kingston (GA), Sue Myrick (NC), Charlie Norwood (GA), Joe Pitts (PA) and Joe Wilson (SC).

Boehner counters with Rep's Gresham Barrett (SC), Steve Buyer (IN), John Kline (MN), Steve Pearce (NM) and Pat Tiberi (OH).

As demonstrated in an email circulated last night by Boehner's camp, the candidates each have solidly conservative voting records.

Having taken himself out of the running today, Rep. Mike Pence (IN), the head of the conservative RSC coalition, is perhaps Target #1 among conservatives at this point. Although it is uncertain how many, if any, votes his endorsement could deliver, we feel safe surmising that he heard from Messrs Blunt and Boehner today.


http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/01/conservative_cl.html

Mike Pence not to run for Leader

Dear RSC Colleague:
With the advent of elections in the Republican Conference, I wanted to write to clarify my intentions and to explain the role that I believe the Republican Study Committee should play in the upcoming debate.

First, as to my intentions, despite the fact that I have repeated for months that I had “no intention of seeking any leadership position,” there have been numerous media reports mentioning me as a possible candidate for leadership.

Because some of you have encouraged me to consider seeking a leadership position, Karen and I endeavored to give the matter the kind of prayerful consideration that such encouragement merits. I am writing to confirm that I will not be seeking any elected position in the Republican Conference at this time.

While I will always aspire to be available to serve my country when called, I believe I can do more good for the conservative movement by focusing my energies within the RSC. Those of you who know me well know that my passion is to look after my young family and serve the cause I was elected to advance: limited government, a strong defense and traditional moral values. There my focus will remain.

Second, as to our role, while I will not be a candidate, I believe the Republican Study Committee has a central role to play in the coming weeks. Rather than facilitating an unnecessarily divisive election for leadership, the Republican Study Committee should assist our members in selecting our new leadership and developing an agenda for the fiscal and moral reform our nation awaits from this majority.

By remaining focused on the role of the RSC, we will be better able to ensure that House conservatives play a decisive role in selecting our new leaders and setting the new agenda. To this end, RSC will be providing each of you with talking points from our 2005 RSC Agenda and inviting each of the candidates to address the upcoming Conservative Member Retreat in Baltimore (Jan 30-31), to take questions from our members in the days immediately preceding the leadership elections. I hope you will be able to attend.

These are times of great challenge and great opportunity for our Republican Majority. To see our way through, we must “be strong, courageous and do the work” for which the American people minted this Republican Congress. Thanks again to those who expressed words of support and encouragement in the past several weeks. It is one of the greatest honors of my life to lead the men and women of the Republican Study Committee.

May God, Himself, bless you with wisdom as you discern the right leaders and the right agenda for our nation in the coming weeks.

Your servant, Mike Pence Chairman Republican Study Committee

Sanford Update

Dear Friend,

Last week I submitted to the General Assembly the Executive Budget for fiscal year 2006-2007. A full copy of the budget can be found online at www.scgovernor.com and I invite you to read it. In the meantime, however, I thought you’d be interested in what our state's leading newspapers are saying about it.

The August Chronicle asks: "Do South Carolinians favor efficiency over waste? Simplicity over complexity? Slimmer government over bloated bureaucracy? Tax rebates over unnecessary government spending?" … and then answers its own question: "If they do, then they'll strongly support Gov. Mark Sanford's proposed 2006-07 budget."

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/010806/edi_6174535.shtml

The Spartanburg Herald-Journal says: "Gov. Mark Sanford issued an executive budget last week that sets a standard for fiscal restraint. Sanford's budget limits state spending growth to a combination of the increase in the state's population and inflation. State lawmakers should adopt such a goal as they consider their own state budget."

http://goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060108/NEWS/601080310/1022/OPINION

And the Charleston Post & Courier states: "Gov. Mark Sanford continues to have his budget priorities in order - first finish paying off the debt and restoring trust funds and then give substantial extra dollars for essential services such as education, law enforcement and job recruitment.”

http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=64013§ion=editorials

The referenced editorials can be accessed online at the provided links, and they are also reprinted below. Please take the time to forward them to your friends and family.

Take care,

Mark

***********************************************************************

A great budget plan for South Carolina

Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff

Published January 8, 2006

Do South Carolinians favor efficiency over waste? Simplicity over complexity? Slimmer government over bloated bureaucracy? Tax rebates over unnecessary government spending?

If they do, then they'll strongly support Gov. Mark Sanford's proposed 2006-07 budget - a budget that was forged in the wake of public hearings held around the state. Hence, the Sanford budget reflects the will of Palmetto State taxpayers more than any spending plan the Legislature comes up with. That ought to be important, especially in an election year.

The governor's budget is rooted in sound economics and common sense. Will majority lawmakers, who belong to the same Republican Party as the governor, have enough sense to listen to this guy?

There are two kinds of power struggles in South Carolina. One is familiar, Democrats vs. Republicans. The other is the legislative branch vs. the executive. Historically, power is weighted to the Legislature, even when the same party controls both branches. Legislators are simply loath to yield any of their power.

This leads to government by committee, which is terribly confusing, inefficient and expensive. It keeps the General Assembly in session for six months - nearly twice as long as Georgia's, yet South Carolina isn't as large in population or geography.

During all that time, legislators have to do something. So they tend to spend money they don't have, or make laws they don't need. Idle hands are, after all, the devil's workshop, and this could account for many of the state's problems, including its above-average unemployment and crime rates, low school performances and less-than-stellar credit ratings.

These are issues that Sanford's budget deals with. His $5.9 billion blueprint pays back trust and reserve funds while boosting spending on essential services such as law-enforcement and education.

The central feature of his plan, however, calls for limiting state spending to population plus inflation. Here's how it works: The governor would spend about $607 million of the $758 million in new money pouring into state coffers this year - which equates to a pinch more than 5.5 percent spending growth.

He would then rebate the other $151 million to taxpayers. That money, he says, "can be used to grow the economy and family budgets, instead of growing the government's budget."

He's right. The tax rebate would provide immediate property tax relief, and lighten some of the other spending burdens on families, such as energy costs and tuition increases. The question lawmakers ought to be asking is whether government can put that money to better use. The answer: not likely.

Government should never spend more money than it needs just because the economy is improving. It generates expenditures that can't be sustained during hard times, resulting in deficits, debt and weaker credit. Limiting higher spending to population plus inflation ensures that won't happen.

What South Carolina lawmakers ought to do, if they had any sense, is OK Sanford's budget and then go home. This could be done in 30 days or fewer. It would keep them out of trouble and probably get them all re-elected - a great year for them and taxpayers alike. Why not go for it?

***********************************************************************

Governor's budget sets a standard for limiting growth of state spending

Spartanburg Herald Journal Editorial Staff

Published January 8, 2006

Gov. Mark Sanford issued an executive budget last week that sets a standard for fiscal restraint.

Sanford's budget limits state spending growth to a combination of the increase in the state's population and inflation.

State lawmakers should adopt such a goal as they consider their own state budget. And they should do so early before they get caught up in a year that doesn't present the same tight budget they have experienced in recent years.

It's important to set the perspective early in the budget debate. The state expects to take in almost $815 million in new revenue. That's 8 percent growth in state income. But state agencies have requested $960 million in new spending.

Lawmakers will have their own spending goals. The test will be whether the General Assembly shows proper spending restraint or returns to the free-spending habits of the past.

Lawmakers should follow the broad priorities the governor set for his budget. Sanford allows for $313 million in new state spending: $120 million more for education, an additional $109 million for Medicaid and more for law enforcement. But his budget limits that spending to 5.15 percent.

Sanford suggests allocating the rest of state revenue to several specific priorities. He would repay the state trust funds that were borrowed during lean budget years. He would repair a recurring accounting budget deficit. And he would give taxpayers a rebate that would amount to about $75 per taxpayer.

The first two are necessary to restore the state's fiscal foundation and are likely to be priorities of lawmakers as well.

The tax rebates have been criticized by Sanford's many political enemies in both parties as an election-year gimmick, but they are part of the tax reduction Sanford has been trying to achieve since his election.

But they are not the only solution at a time when the state has many deferred maintenance needs. Lawmakers could take the $151 million that Sanford has allocated to tax rebates and spend it on one-time, catch-up measures such as bridge repairs or school buses.

But the governor's overall perspective on the budget should be followed: Limit the growth of recurring state spending, take care of the state's fiscal condition, and return any money left over to the taxpayers.

***********************************************************************

Sanford's solid budget plan

Post and Courier Editorial Staff

Published January 8, 2006

Gov. Mark Sanford continues to have his budget priorities in order - first finish paying off the debt and restoring trust funds and then give substantial extra dollars for essential services such as education, law enforcement and job recruitment. Not surprisingly, his proposal to return some of the money to the taxpayers has taken the hardest hit from state legislators.

The governor said his budget plan, if adopted, "will allow us to finish the single greatest goal this administration has advocated" since taking office four years ago - "getting our fiscal house in order." Mr. Sanford points out that when he took office three years ago, "the state had an overlooked $155 million unconstitutional deficit, nearly $500 million borrowed from trust and reserve funds, and a $105 million accounting deficit created by the General Assembly and executive branch, beginning in 1991."

"As of this budget, the $155 million deficit has been retired and approximately $324 million has been returned to trust and reserve funds. This budget proposes to completely repay the $173 million in outstanding balances to trust and reserve funds and eliminate the $105 million in the accounting deficit that has been on our books beginning 15 years ago," he said in his budget message.

Thanks to Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom, the long-standing accounting deficit issue was brought to a head several months ago when he decided to use excess funds to correct the mistake. While Mr. Eckstrom later was told only the General Assembly could correct the deficit problem, let's hope he made his point - an important one if the state's AAA credit rating is to be restored.

The governor's legislative critics have taken aim at his proposal to return $151 million in surplus funds to taxpayers. Those rebates, estimated to average $75 per taxpayer, have been decried as an election-year ploy and disdained as the sort of pork-barrel politics the governor has stood against. One legislator compared it to a company giving an employee two hams at Christmas.

The governor got it right in his response that a return to taxpayers of their own money hardly fits the definition of "pork barrel" spending. Mr. Sanford adds that this is the first year since he took office that the state's financial situation has allowed him to propose the rebate. "Taxpayers should share in good economic times, just as they have to pay through the bad economic times," he says.

The state's improved revenue picture has provided for substantial new contributions to critical needs. It proposes, for example, new education dollars, including a $63 million merit program for teachers, increasing the base student funding by $120 million and continuing to fund teacher pay at $300 above the Southeastern average.

There appears to be bipartisan support for the governor's plan to bolster the Department of Commerce's efforts for economic development and job creation. Critics of the lag in economic development score a point when they note that the earlier cutbacks in that department were initiated by the administration. The governor's new budget proposes $11 million in additional revenue for the Cabinet agency.

The budget seeks more support for additional law enforcement officers, including highway patrolmen, SLED agents and security for prisons and juvenile detention facilities. It recommends an additional $23 million for 320 officers, nearly comparable to last year's recommendation for bolstering public safety.

Overall, though, the governor contends that the number of state employees is higher than it should be, indeed, 43 percent higher than the national average. He recommends a cap on state spending, and restates his recommendations for restructuring government to limit duplication and cut waste.

So far, the Legislature has demonstrated an unfortunate reluctance to complete the restructuring of state government. The estimated savings of $19 million a year from a proposed merger of state agencies should finally convince legislative critics to support the governor's efforts to further streamline state government.

New Majority Leader?

Mike Pence for Majority Leader
By: Blanton · Section: GOP


“Mike Pence can and Mike Pence should be given the opportunity.” A leadership vote will take place sooner rather than later to determine who will permanently replace Tom DeLay as the Republican Majority Leader in the United States House of Representatives. As Rich Lowry points out, there are two leading contenders.
One is John Boehner of Ohio. Representative Boehner is known for being an establishment Republican very well connected with the lobbyists on K Street. Boehner is perhaps best remembered for a May 10, 1996, Bob Herbert column from the New York Times wherein Herbert reported, "Mr. Boehner took it upon himself to begin handing out money from tobacco lobbyists to certain of his colleagues on the House floor. He was not deterred by the fact that the House was in session, and that he was supposed to be attending to the nation's business. He was not constrained by any sense that passing money around the floor of the House of Representatives was a sacrilege. He had the checks and he dispensed them."

The other major contender is Roy Blunt of Missouri, the acting majority leader. Mr. Blunt, likewise an establishment Republican, left his wife of 30 years for the loving embrace of a K Street lobbyist, a tobacco lobbyist no less.

There are other pretenders to the throne like Zack Wamp, who hides inside the Republican Study Committee, but would prefer to be a big spending "do as you are told" Republican leader, and Tom Reynolds who does not inspire the grassroots or the conservative base.

At a time when Democrats are trying to paint Republicans as unethical greedy crooks in the pockets of Jack Abramoff and his ilk, Republicans in Congress should look to one who is willing to work for the party, but who is not willing to give up the fight for the conservative base. Republicans need to start looking for a "do as I do" Republican and not continue on with hypocrits of power.

Right now the House Republicans need Mike Pence. He's done wonders revitalizing the Republican Study Committee. It has become an effective organization. There are others there like Jeb Hensarling, who can keep it going. There are not many in the Republican ranks who can revitalize Republican leadership in the House as a whole. Mike Pence can and Mike Pence should be given the opportunity.

Clinton wiretapped Strom

During the 1990's under President Bill Clinton, the National Security Agency conducted random telecommunications surveillance of millions of phone calls daily under a top secret program known as Echelon.

But according to at least two people familiar with the spy operation at the time, some of the surveillance was far from indiscriminate.

In a February 2000 interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," NSA operator Margaret Newsham revealed that the agency's listening post in Great Britain was involved in monitoring the phone calls of at least one top Republican on Capitol Hill.

Questioned by "60 Minutes" interviewer Steve Kroft, Newsham recalled how she learned of the illegal surveillance:



"I walked into the office building and a friend said, 'Come over here and listen to--to this thing.' And he had headphones on, so I took the headphones and I listened to it, and I looked at him and said, 'That's an American.' . . .
Ms. Newsham remembered, "It was definitely an American voice, and it was a voice that was distinct. And I said, 'Well, who is that?'

"And he said it was Senator Strom Thurmond."

Until his retirement from the Senate in 2002, Thurmond was a frequent critic of the Clinton administration, who played a leading role in the 1998 impeachment drama - though there's no known connection to the decision to wiretap the South Carolina conservative.

During the same program, however, Kroft consulted with Mike Frost, who worked for Canada's version of the NSA for 20-years.

Asked if it was commonplace for the NSA to monitor the phone calls of top U.S. politicians, Frost told CBS: "Of course it goes on. Been going on for years. Of course it goes on. That's the way it works."

Solemn services mark anniversary of tragedy

GRANITEVILLE — Teary-eyed but determined, hundreds of Aiken County residents gathered Friday to remember the worst disaster in this small community’s history, a train wreck that killed nine people and sent thousands fleeing for their lives.
Many said Graniteville has grown stronger and closer since the Jan. 6, 2005, Norfolk Southern wreck poisoned the air with chlorine from a leaking tank car.

“Our little town has proven to be resilient,” the Rev. James Abraham said. “I’ve seen change in our community. Our community is more caring.”
Friday’s first anniversary events included a pre-dawn candlelight vigil at the spot of the wreck and a community gathering later at USC Aiken to praise rescue workers for their efforts.

Dozens of emergency workers and politicians, including U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C., and state Treasurer Grady Patterson, visited Graniteville for the later event. All said rescue and recovery efforts were outstanding; about 96 agencies had helped.
Abraham, who led people in prayer during both services, unveiled a song to commemorate the disaster.

“Down at the Railroad Tracks” tells the story of the town’s struggle with the accident and its faith in God. A recording filled the air of Graniteville for hours Friday morning, blaring from speakers atop the First Baptist Church. Abraham and other vocalists performed the song for the first time during the USC Aiken service.
Tears dripped down the cheek of Kathy McGowan as she listened.

Rusty Rushton, her ex-husband and the father of their two sons, died in the chlorine leak. Though the couple’s relationship had soured, McGowan said her teen sons practically worshipped their father, who enjoyed coaching them in football youth leagues and taking them to the mountains.

“Our oldest son is taking it extra hard,” she said. “It’s just better that he wasn’t here today.”

Sara Kennebeck, of Atlanta, said Friday was difficult for her, but she is glad community leaders organized the services. Kennebeck’s son, John Henry Laird Jr., died in the chlorine leak.

“I was hoping this would be a real good healing day, and it has been to some extent — to know that the community won’t forget them,” the former Aiken County resident said. “That’s the main reason we’re out here, so people won’t forget them.”
Last year’s wreck occurred when a rapidly moving freight train ran off the main track and onto an industrial spur at Avondale Mills, smashing into a parked locomotive. Chlorine spilled from a ruptured tank car, sending a toxic fog over the town. Chlorine inhalation killed all nine people, including the moving train’s engineer. Hundreds of others were injured; some still have problems breathing.
The National Transportation Safety Board blamed the crew of the parked train for the wreck because they failed to reset the switch to prevent a diversion onto the industrial line. It was the nation’s deadliest train wreck and chemical spill since 1978.

Norfolk Southern spokesman Robin Chapman told the crowd at USC Aiken that his company’s “heart goes out to the victims and their families.”
Few Graniteville residents expressed anger at Norfolk Southern about the wreck Friday, saying they were simply sorry the accident occurred — particularly for the families of the victims.

“It was kind of sad. But it made you remember more about the reason people died,” Elease Mathis said after the candle service.

Lindsey Graham at his conservative best

Since I was just critical of our great Senator Graham, I thought I would post an article that highlights when and where Senator Graham is at his best for Conservatism and the Party.This article appeared before the 04 convention and was the result of conservative leaders trying to honor the great Henry Hyde who is retiring in '06.

Pro-life speakers sought for convention

More than half the Republicans in the House have signed a formal complaint to President Bush about the failure to give prominent conservative, pro-life party members even one prime-time speaking role at the Republican National Convention.

A letter signed by 127 of the 227 House Republicans, including the chairmen of several powerful committees, urges Mr. Bush to add Rep. Henry J. Hyde, Illinois Republican and longtime abortion foe, to what is a mostly pro-choice cast of speakers at the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 convention in New York.

"Henry's name has been synonymous with the pro-life movement for the last 30 years," said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican, who wrote the letter and collected signatures. "When he is introduced at the convention, it is going to be like Elvis at Memphis."

Mr. Pence, who was still circulating copies of his letter among members late yesterday, said, "Pro-lifers are to the Republican National Convention what members of the teachers' unions are to the Democratic convention — they're just about everybody there."


The signers of his letter include such powerful names among House Republicans as Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young of Florida, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe L. Barton of Texas, and Select Homeland Security Committee Chairman Christopher Cox of California.

The pre-convention rebellion by so many conservative House members is driven by re-election concerns and frustration over policy differences with the White House in the past 31/2 years, Capitol Hill Republicans said privately.

Public revolt is the last thing the Bush campaign wants to see, after the Senate Republican leaders failed Wednesday to get even 50 votes to back a constitutional amendment against homosexual "marriages."

Last month, Republican convention planners announced a prime-time speakers' list, which was approved by chief Bush strategist Karl Rove.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, New York Gov. George E. Pataki, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani — all of whom are pro-choice — are lined up for evening speeches.

Among three other prime-time speakers, Sen. John McCain of Arizona is a fiscal conservative with a pro-life voting record. But he publicly ran against religious conservatives in the 2000 primaries, frequently clashes with party leaders, and opposes such religious conservative touchstones as the marriage amendment.

Secretary of Education Rod Paige is little known outside of his home state of Texas. Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia is strongly pro-life, but he is a Democrat.

"The most conservative speaker right now is John McCain, who is truly a fiscal conservative. But a lot of conservatives believe the conservative movement that got us here is being ignored at the convention," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican.

Concern for the lack of diversity in the convention lineup went beyond the pro-life conservatives in the House.

"I would be very proud if Henry Hyde were to speak," said Rep. Jim Leach, Iowa Republican, who is pro-choice. "He would reflect the sentiment of an awful lot of Americans, and he is a first-class leader."

Mr. Pence said signers of his letter agreed that "millions of voters will be tuning into the convention to hear someone give voice to the traditional moral values that brought them to the Republican Party in 1980."

"The strength of the Republican majority in America is not in the California governor's office or in the moderate politics of George Pataki," Mr. Pence said. "It's in the millions of pro-family voters who will campaign for our candidates and turn out on Election Day."

Washington Times

Freemarket makes sense

Gov. Mark Sanford recently stated in a recent commentary on school choice: "From day one, our administration has been focused on advancing ideas that are all about making South Carolina more competitive ... becoming more competitive means pushing for reforms that are consistent with market principles. ... "

Gov. Sanford should remain true to his economic philosophical stance and work to abolish our state's CON laws and promote free-market principles in health care. Market dynamics are far more reliable than the whim and fancy of a few Columbia bureaucrats.

It makes no sense to support an agency that does not meet its objectives. The state of our health-care system speaks for itself. It is time to rid ourselves of this biased, inefficient and "unAmerican" practice and allow free market principles to dictate behavior in the health-care industry.

Graham seeks more power

Hell hath no fury like a branch of government scorned. The Republican Congress didn't mind rolling over for a popular president, but now that the Bush White House is a heavy burden, Hill Republicans are eager to put him in a lockbox.

As Sen. Lindsey Graham tells the Washington Post, "What you have seen is a Congress, which has been AWOL through intimidation or lack of unity, get off the sidelines and jump in with both feet." Some Hill Republicans are calling for a congressional investigation into Bush's domestic spy scandal, while Hill Democrats float words they used to hate, like "special prosecutor" and "impeachment."

Graham needs to get on board

Are you sure you really need to be investigating the President and getting in his way more than you already have? The President has work to do as Commander in Chief and he needs our support.

South Carolina 2008

While Sanford would be a great President, it is good news that he will be able to focus 100% on his duties as Governor over the next three years.It is good that he took his name out of contention.Looking at the field without Governor Sanford in it is very disturbing and worrisome.None of these candidates have done anything for conservatism and none of them have led. The Senate is a mess and is getting worse.If this is the field expect McCain to run away with it.
I do not believe this will be the field because I believe Indiana Congressman Mike Pence will emerge from the pack and secure the nomination running on a platform of "faith,family,and Freedom." Only a strong Reagan Conservative like Pence can unite all the factions on the right and get us ALL focused on the same goal without infighting.Mike Pence has all the intangables required and I am sure he will begin to emerge in 06.


White House Resolutions
What the candidates of 2008 must do in 2006.



The next presidential campaign won't officially start until after the midterm elections, but it is of course already underway. Here's a roundup of the GOP field, with advice for what each potential candidate might do in 2006 to boost his (or her) chances of winning the Republican nomination in 2008.




Below, the contenders are listed in the order of how they placed in the National Journal's December "insiders poll" — a survey of 100 Republican politicians and consultants who were asked to rank the candidates and their chances. The results are based on a calculation that grants five points for a first-place vote, four for a second-place vote, and so on, for a maximum possible score of 500. In the parentheses after the candidates' names are two numbers: Their score in the National Journal poll, followed by the percentage of Republicans who picked them as their preferred choice for the nomination in a CNN/USA Today poll conducted in the second week of December.

GEORGE ALLEN (365/7%): The Virginia senator's top priority must be his own reelection, which shouldn't pose a serious problem because the one candidate who might give him trouble (outgoing Gov. Mark Warner) isn't running. Yet Allen knows the perils of looking upfield before catching the ball — and a lackluster win rather than an impressive one will raise eyebrows. Because so many Beltway Republicans think he holds the inside track to the nomination, Allen will be tempted simply to nurture his already good relationships with conservatives. But risk avoidance may also make him vulnerable, and the senator could benefit from picking a fight on an issue that motivates the Right, especially one that contrasts his own position against McCain's. Illegal immigration is one possibility, especially with McCain cosponsoring guest-worker legislation with Ted Kennedy. Another possibility is paycheck protection on the federal level, because McCain never bothered with it during the campaign-finance debate.

JOHN MCCAIN (337/22%): The Arizona senator is the most defined figure among the 2008 candidates. The upside is a high name recognition that will help him if the GOP field is crowded; the downside is that his relationship with many conservatives is beyond repair. McCain would do well to join forces with Sen. Tom Coburn and attack Washington's spendthrift ways — he has always been rhetorically strong on government spending, and conservatives are viewing the problem with rising levels of exasperation. It is perhaps the best and only way for McCain to offset his record of opposing President Bush's tax cuts. He would also do himself a lot of favors by campaigning for conservatives in 2006, including perhaps in a contested primary or two. McCain almost certainly won't endorse Steve Laffey over Sen. Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. But suppose he did. Some conservatives might give him a second look.

MITT ROMNEY (168/2%): As the front-running governor, Romney of Massachusetts occupies a privileged position. This is his final year to accomplish anything as an office holder; starting in 2007, he'll be limited to delivering speeches. His top goal for 2006 is to enact health-care legislation that provides universal coverage through market mechanisms, which could put some real substance behind new claims of a Massachusetts Miracle. As head of the Republican Governors Association, he should travel the country and spend time among red-state voters who may be skeptical of a politician from Massachusetts. He will also need to burnish his pro-life credentials, possibly through a Cooper Union-style speech that explains his rhetorical record and convinces activists that he has experienced a conversion of conscience rather than convenience. Finally, Romney should establish a media presence during the Winter Olympics, in order to remind Americans explicitly of how he cleaned up the Salt Lake City games and implicitly of how he's unblemished by D.C. corruption.

RUDY GIULIANI (149/30%): The former mayor of New York City is both one of the best-loved and least-electable Republicans — conservatives embrace his anti-crime and post-9/11 record, but they can't see themselves supporting a man who holds the social values of a Manhattan liberal. To create goodwill, Giuliani should spend every waking minute stumping for conservative candidates at all levels. Visible and vigorous campaigning for Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania especially might help. He should also talk about judges as much as possible, and let everyone know that he regards John Roberts and Sam Alito as outstanding Supreme Court nominees. This would allow activists to believe that he'd be friendly on the issue that lies at the heart of pro-life and pro-marriage activism.

BILL FRIST (93/3%): For the Senate Majority Leader, the sooner the year ends, the better. Frist's current job has elevated his stature, but it also holds him at least partially responsible for Republican failings in the Senate. Has there ever been a Senate Majority Leader who was more admired at the end of his tenure than at the start? November's Senate elections will be interpreted as a referendum on Frist's leadership and losing seats — especially Santorum's in Pennsylvania — would be a major blow. Given the widespread expectation that 2006 will be a good year for Democrats, merely holding the GOP's 55-seat majority might be enough for Frist to declare victory and provide a bounce heading into 2007.

HALEY BARBOUR (92/2%): Hurricane Haley is perhaps the only elected official who boosted his reputation in the wake of Katrina. It's too bad that he couldn't have been the governor of Louisiana in addition to Mississippi. His challenge for 2006 is to help reconstruct his own state's coastal region without demanding unseemly levels of federal aid. He may also want to put out the word among his well-positioned network of GOP activists that they shouldn't sign up with other candidates. From his time as head of the Republican National Committee, Barbour retains enormous levels of goodwill among the party's county chairmen and grassroots activists. If he runs in 2008, he will need their help to run a flawless ground game and score some early upsets. But will voters flock to a successful former lobbyist or will the stench of K Street encourage them to pass over a man with Barbour's resume?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE (61/N.A.): Many candidates who run for president lack foreign-policy credentials. Rice's challenge would be the reverse: She has virtually no record on domestic matters — and what conservatives know about her isn't encouraging. On abortion, she is apparently pro-choice; on racial preferences, she is apparently a supporter of affirmative action. She would need to demonstrate that she is a conservative on just about everything else. It probably isn't wise to seek the presidency in a first attempt at public office, and Rice has said she isn't running. If and when she throws her hat in the ring, perhaps it should be for governor of California, in 2010. For now, it may best that Rice devote herself fully to the problems of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as well as jump starting the stalled world-trade talks.

GEORGE PATAKI (39/N.A.): Apart an unlikely round of tax cuts that will return the governor of New York to the form he displayed during his first term, there is probably only one thing that could revive Pataki in 2006 — and that's the tall order of seeing a Republican succeed him in Albany. It would go a long way toward undoing the perception that Pataki has been an abominably bad party builder in the Empire State. Without some new accomplishment, Republicans will wonder why they should support a governor who continues to preside over a state with the country's highest tax burden despite having served a dozen years in office.

NEWT GINGRICH (37/N.A.): The former Speaker of the House has made headlines recently for teaming up with Sen. Hillary Clinton on health-care legislation that would modernize medical record-keeping. It is apparently a worthy bill, and Gingrich should see that it becomes law as quickly as possible. This will allow him to quit having his picture taken with the front-running Democratic presidential candidate and also provide enough time for the law to have a noticeable effect. In addition, Gingrich would be smart to associate himself with House spending reformers, such as Jeff Flake (Arizona), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), and Mike Pence (Indiana). This would demonstrate that he's not an ousted revolutionary from a bygone era but the ever-watchful guardian of conservative reform. Gingrich is also probably helped if 2006 is a lousy year for GOP candidates — it might create a hunger for a guy who once demonstrated an ability to build majorities.

CHUCK HAGEL (35/N.A.): The Nebraska senator has been perhaps the biggest Republican critic of the Bush administration's policy on Iraq. In this one area, he should aspire to be more like McCain, the senator to whom he is often compared: He should be forthrightly pro-war. GOP primary voters are unlikely to find themselves casting ballots for the Council on Foreign Relation's pet Republican.

JEB BUSH (30/N.A.): If this presidential brother were to suggest he might run in 2008, he would immediately become a major contender. His last name would be both a blessing and a curse. The main reason why conservatives like him has much less to do with his bloodline than with his impressive record as governor of Florida. Because of this, Bush's priorities in 2006 should be to build upon prior accomplishments. Expanding school choice in his state would be an important victory.

MIKE HUCKABEE (28/N.A.): The governor of Arkansas should undo his second-term tax increases. Otherwise, he's just a pro-life Pataki.

SAM BROWNBACK (18/N.A.): Among social conservatives, the senator from Kansas possesses sterling credentials. He could become the John Ashcroft of this cycle, which perhaps isn't saying much because Ashcroft dropped out of the 2000 race before the first primary. Brownback would serve himself well by courting economic conservatives in 2006; he might begin by proposing a major piece of pro-growth legislation or identifying himself with the flat tax. If he can unite the former supporters of both Ashcroft and Steve Forbes, he might stand a chance. A better-than-expected showing in the primaries could catapult him to the top of many vice-presidential short lists.

MARK SANFORD (7/N.A.): The governor of South Carolina appears to have taken himself out of the 2008 race without ever having gotten into it, but conservatives applaud him so loudly he shouldn't be discounted until it really is too late. Sanford would be well served by achieving the major legislative accomplishments that so far have eluded him: Delivering on tax cuts or school choice would provide a big boost.

RICK SANTORUM (7/N.A.): Win!

TIM PAWLENTY (5/N.A.): The darkest of dark horses, the governor of Minnesota might have been wise to hold out for a better budget agreement than the one he got last summer, after Democrats forced a temporary government shutdown. Aggressive tax cuts should be the next item on his agenda. He could become an attractive running mate.

BOX OUT, GUYS!

Pittsburgh 58, South Carolina 51
Dec. 28, 2005




COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Freshman Sam Young scored a career-high 16 points to keep Pittsburgh undefeated with a 58-51 victory over South Carolina on Wednesday night.

Young's play saved the Panthers (10-0) from an overall sluggish performance as they shot less than 40 percent for the game and finished 19 points below their season's scoring average. Still, Pitt matched its start from last season and kept on the trail of the school's 18-0 start from 2003-04.

Keith Benjamin's jumper put Pitt ahead 24-22 early in the second half - the team's first lead since 2-0 - and then Young extended the margin with his three-point play.

Three minutes later, Young hit a 3-pointer as teammate - and Panthers' top scorer - Carl Krauser raised his arms along with the referees as the shot went through.

Young followed with four straight free throws and Pittsburgh led 38-29.

The Gamecocks eventually cut things to 49-45 with less than three minutes left and forced Pitt guard Ronald Ramon into a long, off-balance three-point try with the shot clock near zero. But Young cut across the lane from the right corner to collect the long rebound.

Krauser would eventually end the possession with a driving layup to maintain control for the Panthers.

South Carolina retired the No. 3 jersey of all-time scoring leader BJ McKie before the tip-off.

The Gamecocks (7-4) could've used the savvy and steadiness McKie showed during his four seasons from 1996-99. South Carolina squandered several chances to tighten the game near the end.

When Krauser hit both ends of a one-and-one to put Pitt ahead 53-47 with 51 seconds to go, Rocky Trice missed an inside shot as he got followed on the Gamecocks next possession.

Then Trice missed one of his two foul shots.

Pittsburgh closed things out at the foul line, making 11 of its final 12 attempts.

Krauser added 15 points, 11 in the second half, and Aaron Gray had 13 rebounds. Young also had seven rebounds, two assists and a steal.

Tre Kelley led the Gamecocks with 18 points while Antoine Tisby had 12 points. One of the most glaring weaknesses for South Carolina was on the boards where Pittsburgh held a 38-22 advantage.

AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service

Copyright 2004-2005, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved

PRO LIFE RALLY JAN 24th

PRO-LIFE RALLY: The Voice of the Unborn will hold a Pro-Life Rally and News Conference inside the S.C. Statehouse at 11:45 a.m. Jan. 24. The rally will take place outside the office of Gov. Mark Sanford. During this rally and conference, the organization will petition the General Assembly to place a monument in front of the Statehouse to stand in honor and memory of South Carolina's unborn children.

Risk averse Republicans????

Bloomberg

Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, says the administration has become ``risk-averse,'' which he says may threaten the party's majority in Congress. ``If we don't go out with bold inspirational ideas and convince the American people that we're going to make the future better than today, I think we're going to lose big-time,'' he said in a Dec. 15 interview.

REPUBLICAN STUDY COMMITTEE

This is an update from the Republican Study Committe, the House conservative Caucus.
The RSC is the last bastion of Reagan conservatism in Washington D.C.We hope to do an in depth story on the RSC shortly.


Update from the House Republican Study Committee (RSC):
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Chairman

Happy New Year! The House was out of session last week and will return to session on January 31, 2006.

"Be always at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let each new year find you a better man."
--Benjamin Franklin

Contents--January 3, 2006

Conservative Activity
The Money Monitor
Legislative Activity

Conservative Activity

--Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) is urging the Senate to quickly pass the Stealth Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4096), which passed the House in December. Click here for some details on what the bill would do:

http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/CA_010306_reynoldsamt.doc.

To view other activities of House conservatives, visit this webpage: http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/rsc_memberactivity.shtml.

The Money Monitor

Each week in "The Money Monitor," the RSC tracks how the bills passed by the House would affect authorizations, mandatory spending, appropriations, and federal government revenue. Because the House was out of session last week, no new spending was authorized. For more information, view "The Money Monitor" for the week of December 26-30, 2005, which includes some previously unavailable cost estimates and year-to-date totals, here:

http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/MM_122605.doc.

To access earlier editions of "The Money Monitor," click here: http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/moneymonitor.shtml.

Legislative Activity

The House came into session briefly on Thursday, December 22, 2005, and passed the following legislative items by unanimous consent. Most Members were not in attendance.

H.R. 4647 -- To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions of such Act (one-month extension) http://thomas.loc.gov/

S. 2167 -- To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions of that Act and the lone wolf provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (one-month extension) http://thomas.loc.gov/

S.Con.Res. 74 -- A concurrent resolution correcting the enrollment of H.R. 2863 (removing provisions from the Defense Appropriations bill that would have allowed oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and distributed the revenues yielded from such drilling)

http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB_122205_noANWR.doc



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you think your friends and contacts would want their own free e-mail subscriptions to weekly RSC Updates, please refer them to this link: http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/email_updates.shtml.

We encourage you to forward this RSC E-mail Update.

To read PDF files, download Adobe Acrobat for free: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html.

To change your e-mail address, add an e-mail address, or unsubscribe from these e-mail updates, provide the appropriate information here: http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/email_updates.shtml.

Click here to learn more about the RSC: http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/about.shtml.




House Republican Study Committee (RSC)

Rep. Mike Pence, Chairman

Sheila Cole, Executive Director

Paul S. Teller, Deputy Director

Russ Vought, Policy Director

Derek Baker, Senior Legislative Analyst

Joelle Cannon, Legislative Analyst

Matt Lloyd, Communications Director

(202) 226-9717--phone (202) 226-1633--fax

http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc

2005 produces winners, losers in South Carolina's political arena

First, the winners:

The speakers. Former House Speaker David Wilkins of Greenville got a big boost in his profile as the Bush Administration's new ambassador to Canada, while House Ways and Means Chairman Bobby Harrell of Charleston took over as new speaker.

The attorney. Attorney General Henry McMaster raised the office's profile for actively pushing for more prosecutors to combat one of the state's worst problems, criminal domestic violence. He also got a big win by encouraging the General Assembly to expand powers of the state grand jury to include special prosecution of environmental crimes.

The volunteers. Hats off to Sam Tenenbaum, Columbia Mayor Bob Coble, Ginger Crocker and a host of others who made a big success of South Carolina Cares, a Columbia-based organization that provided help to Hurricane Katrina victims. Kudos also to Columbia public relations guru and director Bud Ferillo for "Corridor of Shame," his eye-opening film on rural education in the state.

The leader. Congratulations to U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., who was elected to the third highest leadership position among House Democrats. He also provided a private endowment to S.C. State University that could grow to $1 million.

The policies. The year signaled the end of minibottles at bars and restaurants (starting Jan. 1) and a tougher seat belt policy that should save lives on state highways. An early-year push for a school voucher-type program waned at the end of the year as the governor pulled support.

And now the losers of 2005:

The governor. From being named one of the worst governors in the nation to continuing to antagonize lawmakers in his own party, South Carolina's thin-skinned governor did little right in 2005. Gov. Mark Sanford's meddling to privatize Santee Cooper and the state's Medicaid program led to fractious events. His continuing lack of legislative accomplishments and poor economic record ("More could be done," noted fellow Republican and U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett) earned him a GOP primary challenger in 2006, although he likely will return to the governor's mansion for another term.

The comptroller. Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom nabbed more than $100 million in state funds to pay down an old deficit, but was spanked by lawmakers, editorial writers and finally the attorney general for exceeding his authority.

The economy. At year's end, South Carolina's unemployment rate remained one of the nation's highest while job growth was in the cellar of the 50 states. The state's credit rating also dropped from AAA for the first time in years.

The mouth. State Rep. John Graham Altman, R-Charleston, always is good for a quote, but he stepped in it in 2005 for sexist remarks ("Women want to punish the men") on domestic violence and shabby treatment of a TV reporter.

The party. South Carolina Democrats had little to smile about when their top vote-getter, state Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum, declined to run for governor or even her current office. That leaves the party without a well-recognized candidate at the top of the ticket.

The politicians. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer didn't do much to help himself throughout the year, but he managed to pick up a primary challenger (Mike Campbell, son of the late Gov. Carroll Campbell) and a Democratic challenger (former Rep. Robert Barber of Charleston). State Rep. Michael Thompson, R-Anderson, picked up enmity for proposing a study of drilling off the South Carolina coast.

U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., spouted off with a lot of war-mongering talk and had embattled Rep. Tom DeLay headline a fundraiser.

The policies. Tort reform passed with much hullabaloo, but it reportedly is having no effect on rising medical insurance rates for doctors. Advocates for property tax reform moved the issue to the top of the 2006 agenda, although major shifts in the state's tax structure could have long-term negative effects, particularly for low- and moderate-income people.

With a statewide election on tap for 2006 and members of the House up for re-election, 2006 likely will be even more lively than the year just passed.

While I disagree with this author on many points, we all have to agree that we must do better in '06. All the groundwork has been laid for sucess, we just have to be bold enough to follow through.

2008 Analysis: Iowa Caucus, New Hampshire Primary, and South Carolina Primary

Because a Presidential election is more than "pick your favorite candidate" no 2008 analysis can be had without detailed inspection into the first caucus and three primaries of the nomination process.

The results of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire, and South Carolina primaries will decide who our candidate will be in 2008. Each state has their own rules a candidate must obey to get elected, so they need to dealt with individually. This is why the polls that are normally used for 2008 are inaccurate.

This is early analysis, but 2008 really isn't that far off, and its not too early to make educated guesses.

So lets break it down, state by state. (Excluding all politicians who have ruled out campaigns and candidates who are very not likely to run: Condi, Jeb, Pawlenty, Sanford, Pence, Santorum, Barbour)

Also, I will use the terms first and second tier throughout the diary. I define candidates in the first tier as politicians who register double digits in polls (Rudy, McCain, Newt), and candidates in the second tier as politicians who normally find themselves in the high single digits (Romney, Allen, Brownback).

Jan 2nd, 2006: 00:48:37

Iowa Caucus:
The Iowa caucus is the first indicator for 2008. The biggest issue in Iowa for Presidential elections is always the support for ethanol and increasing its use as an alternative fuel in the United States. This means trouble for Senator McCain, who holds an anti-ethanol stance, which is one of the reasons he skipped the Iowa caucuses in his 2000 presidential campaign. That leaves Rudy and Newt as the only first tier candidates remaining, with Allen, Brownback, and Romney vying for attention in the second tier.

Also worth noting, which could be damaging to Rudy's candidacy is that the Iowa GOP is a pro-life anti-roe organiztion, and will not support a pro-choice candidate.

The candidate spending the most time in Iowa has been Newt Gingrich so far, and considering his pro-life and pro-ethanol stances, I give Newt the edge in Iowa. Also on Newt's side is name recognition, which is huge in Iowa considering the lack of money spent there because of the earliness of the event. That's what will hurt the second tier most in Iowa.

New Hampshire
In 2000, New Hampshire was McCain's state, as he beat Bush by 19 points. This shows New Hampshire's appeal for non-establishment type candidates, reinforcing the belief established in 1996 when Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary.

However, 2008 looks much different than 2000, considering the ammount of northeastern candidates that will be considering a 2008 bid. Geographically, Giuliani has the strongest advantage. Also, Governor Romney should have a strong showing considering the proximity of New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

Politically, Giuliani seems to have the strongest hold on the views of the New Hampshire voter, considering New Hampshire is one of the more moderate states when it comes to abortion.

All things considered, it seems as if Rudy has a lock on New Hampshire regardless of what he plans on doing about his social issues (but a federalist argument should work fine too.)

South Carolina
South Carolina seems to be the most wide open primary of the bunch, with the most electable conservative seeming to be the most important issue on the table. South Carolina also tends to favor establishment type candidates.

Regardless of a federalist argument, I do not see Rudy Giuliani winning South Carolina. South Carolina will not go for a New Yorker.

That leaves McCain, Gingrich, Allen, Romney, and Brownback. All of whom should have put up good numbers. That's why it's so incredibly difficult to project who will win South Carolina.

In 2000, McCain registered 42% of the vote against Bush's 53%. The major difference between that primary and this primary is the ammount of credible candidates that will demand attention. There are as many as six candidates who could put up double digits.

There are two situations I see playing out in South Carolina, either Allen narrowly wins South Carolina by presenting a conservative enough establishment alternative to Rudy and McCain. Or Newt narrowly wins the primary by clearly defeating his opponents in primary debates.

The first scenario seems more likely. But Newt really is a wild card that's hard to measure.

The Next Primaries
Will be further analyzed later. (Michigan, Arizona, Virginia, Washington)


The author is correct about South Carolina being the most wide open of the bunch. He is also correct about the most electable conservative winning. He is wrong about Allen. I just do not see him having a strong campaign. He is also wrong about Indiana Congressman Mike Pence. I think this new style Reagan will run and he will do exceptionally well. Pence is the guy to watch for.