This nugget from Jake Sherman and Patrick O’Connor’s preview of the House GOP retreat deserves more attention.
[House Minority Leader John] Boehner has told his rank and file to embrace the so-called tea party movement “because it will be critical as we proceed,” according to excerpts from his remarks.
I’ve been reporting for months on how, despite the non-partisan origins of the movement, the Tea Party will inevitably do the GOP more good than the Democrats. And the the GOP is aware of this.
It’s Friday, so it’s time for another amusingly tone-deaf Harold Ford, Jr. interview. This one, in the New York Post, got me wondering whether Ford had New York connections we didn’t previously know about.
I was here in college days and always knew New York is where I want to be.
Did Ford go to college in New York? No. He has a B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania and a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School. So he, like plenty of people who aren’t running for Senate, visited New York City at some point in his teens or twenties.
Well, that was more interesting than anyone could have reasonably expected it to be. The sense I’m getting from conservatives and GOP strategists is that the discussion between President Obama and House Republicans in Baltimore was a boon for the president — maybe unfairly so, because the format made even things Republicans mock about Obama (pinning some early problems on the Bush administration) seem forceful.
Reaction from Weekly Standard editor and Fox News pundit Mary Katherine Ham:
Debatable how much this back-&-forth actually achieves, but it *looks* like change/openness. Had O tried it earlier, woulda done him good.
Former Weekly Standard blogger/McCain campaign blogger Michael Goldfarb:
Obama did well, got the better of GOP today. Fortunately, we got the better of him the last six months or so. And health care is dead.
American Spectator blogger Quin Hillyer:
What an arrogant SOB. He repeatedly accuses House Republicans of lowering the tone of debate, and denies that his side has done ANY politicizing or any insults, etc. This is just outrageous. His tone was utterly inappropriate, his body language even worse. That was not a polite give-and-take (although Republicans were certainly polite); it was a stern, rhetoric-filled, in-your-face lecture.
National Review’s Daniel Foster:
[I]t would be hard to argue the exchange is anything but a plus-plus for Obama and the GOP. Both sides emerged from it looking as if, contra the public’s greatest fears, they more or less know what they are talking about on issues like the deficit and health-care reform. The president avoided the temptation to speak in platitudes and sound bytes, and the Republicans went a long way toward showing that they are hardly a party of obstructionists with no solutions to offer Americans.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the speech reactions — Fox News, alone among cable networks, cut away mid-broadcast and went to a newsless interview with Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.).
House Republicans are following up President Obama’s speech to their annual retreat with strikingly combative questions, with phrasing and numbers very familiar to those of us who have been covering Republicans since the start of 2009. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the party’s conference chairman, led off questions by attacking the 2009 stimulus package as a “piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts,” saying that Republicans had a plan that would have “created twice as many jobs at half the cost” — a claim based on an inversion of Christina Romer’s research on depression economics that Romer herself knocked down.
Obama’s answer was a long, point-by-point defense of the stimulus package and dismissal of Pence’s argument. The stimulus, he argued, didn’t deserve blame for unemployment numbers that surged before it was passed. “I am not an ideologue,” Obama said. He couldn’t find a “credible economist” who bought into the GOP plan. When Pence asked whether Obama would support “broad, across-the-board tax cuts,” Obama smiled at him — those tax cuts would mean breaks for people who didn’t need it. In answering that way, he both accepted some GOP frames (an angry liberal economist might have pointed out that the 1981 tax cuts demanded by Ronald Reagan preceded a year of surging unemployment numbers) and dismissed arguments that hadn’t really been dealt with at this level.
James O’Keefe has issued a statement on his arrest in Louisiana, portraying himself as a maligned investigative journalist who was merely trying to see whether the phones worked in Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) office.
I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars (sic) in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.
I noted an error in the statement — the controversy is not over whether Landrieu is “taking millions of federal dollars,” but why the Senate added $300 million in Medicaid subsidies that stood to benefit Louisiana. That’s a legitimate issue — O’Keefe, trying to clear the air, bends it into a bribery smear. That, and his use of the statement to demand retractions from “reporters who can’t get their facts straight,” indicate that he’s going to fight this out.
The full statement:
The government has now confirmed what has always been clear: No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office. Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines. Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.
As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN. For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.
I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.
On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building. The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator. We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.
It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story. MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.” The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public. The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me. And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting. The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.
Ryan Frazier, one of the crop of strong African-American Republican candidates I spoke to for this piece, out-fundraised Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) in the final quarter of 2009. According to Federal Election Commission reports, Frazier–who switched from a Senate run to a House bid late last year — snared $218,824 in contributions, while Perlmutter raised $215,201.
It’s a photo finish, but a sign that Perlmutter — re-elected last year by 26 points in a district that President Obama carried by 19 points — has a fight on his hands. His 2008 opponent John Lerew spent only $37,121 on his entire bid.
(Thanks to TWI’s Rachel Hartman for the numbers.)
I reported yesterday that the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco was putting on a lecture by alleged phone-tamperer James O’Keefe on “undercover journalism.” According to Commonwealth Club spokeswoman Riki Rafner, the event is still on for Monday, although “things can change.”
The governor-turned-Fox News pundit tells Greta Van Susteren that she’s still headlining the embattled National Tea Party Convention next week.
Oh, you betcha I’m going to be there. I’m going to speak there because there are people traveling from many miles away to hear what that tea party movement is all about and what that message is that should be received by our politicians in Washington. I’m honored to get to be there.
I won’t personally gain from being there. The speaker’s fee will go right back into the cause. I’ll be able to donate it to people and to events, those things that I believe in that will help perpetuate the message, the message being, Government, you have constitutional limits. You better start abiding by them.
Palin doesn’t have the out that Michele Bachmann and Martha Blackburn had–as a former office-holder, she has no lobbying/ethics hurdles to jump over. The unfolding drama and scandal of this convention, though, make her decision to attend it while bitterly blowing off CPAC seem less and less astute.
The former governor of New Mexico, tipped by many libertarians as a national figure who could become the “next Ron Paul,” is following up his attention-getting speech for the Marijuana Policy Project with a meet-and-greet at the D.C. offices of Reason magazine. (Disclosure: I am a contributing editor of Reason.)
The invitation for the RSVP-only event, below the fold:
Reason magazine invites you to join us for appetizers, drinks and the opportunity to meet with Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico and honorary chairman of the Our America Initiative. On Tuesday, February 9th, Gov. Johnson will make short remarks at 6:30 p.m. and will be available to chat throughout the evening.Johnson, who vetoed 750 bills and never raised taxes in eight years as governor, is outspoken on issues ranging from the deficit to the war on drugs to Afghanistan and Iraq. He is frequently mentioned as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012.Who: Gary Johnson, Honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative, and Reason magazine staff including Reason.com Editor in Chief Nick GillespieWhat: Drinks, AppetizersWhen: Tuesday, February 9 from 6 to 8 p.m.Where: Reason’s DC Office
President Barack Obama delivering his State of the Union; House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) (EPA/ZUMApress.com)
On December 9, House Republicans did what they’d done multiple times throughout 2009. They released an open letter to President Obama, laying out their ideas for a “No-Cost Jobs Plan.” It included, among ideas like scaled-back energy regulation and a temporary tax break for corporations repatriating foreign profits, a proposal for a “spending freeze.”
Image by: Matt Mahurin
“A freeze in domestic discretionary spending,” they argued, “would immediately save $53 billion and more importantly demonstrate an immediate commitment to fiscal restraint.”
Over the next month, the “No-Cost Jobs Plan” remained a useful talking point for Republicans rebutting attacks on their “no” votes, a hook for op-eds, and not much else. But in early January, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag fueled speculation that the White House might want freezes in discretionary spending in the 2011 budget. On Monday night the White House leaked the news that President Obama would propose a three-year freeze on such spending, which makes up roughly one-sixth of the budget. In his State of the Union speech, the president confirmed it.
“Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years,” Obama said. “Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.”
This sudden and hardly expected shift–using the language of personal responsibly that Republicans have used since before Obama took office–has startled members of both parties and economists both critical and supportive of White House policy. And while they’re using the opportunity to needle Democrats on a policy that’s seen as unlikely to shrink the deficit, conservatives see Obama’s decision as a partial declaration of surrender.
“I never met a spending freeze I didn’t like,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the chairman of the Republican conference, told TWI. He pointed to the December 9 letter and gave his party full credit for appearing to change the president’s mind on spending. “I’d welcome a sincere attempt at a spending freeze.”
“Step one is admitting you have a problem,” said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the GOP whip who co-signed the “No-Cost Jobs Plan” with Pence. “Step two is doing something about it. If the president’s come to his senses about spending being too high, we agree.”
As a short-term attempt to co-opt Republican rhetoric, the “spending freeze” promise is a success. The first poll on the idea, conducted by Rasmussen Reports, found a 56-24 percent majority in favor of a freeze, with a slim 48 percent plurality of voters predicting it would have at least “a little” impact on cutting the deficit. It followed multiple polls that have found the public skeptical that government spending can pull the economy out of the recession. That, according to some critics, explains why the White House would grab onto a Republican concept unlikely to have a major effect on the economy.
“It has to be evaluated on political terms,” said Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist who has clashed with fellow travelers over his opposition to spending cuts in a bad economy. “What’s he trying to accomplish politically by saying this? He’s trying to give the appearance of moving to the middle. As policy, it’s too puny to have an effect even if it’s implemented.”
Bartlett argued that liberal economists’ concerns about the impact of any kind of spending freeze were “overwrought, because nothing will come of this. But Obama’s sending mixed signals to everybody–his own supporters as well–as to what exactly his economic philosophy is.”
Deficit hawks have taken the same approach to the “freeze” concept as Republicans. At best, it points to the right policy but doesn’t get there fast enough. At worst, it’s a distraction from more deeply-needed cuts.
“We wouldn’t oppose this,” said Josh Gordon, director of policy at the budget watchdog group The Concord Coalition. “It’s an acknowledgment that the deficit is a problem. You have to start somewhere. My concern is that too much political capital could be wasted on small items, and not enough could be spent on long-term challenges, like entitlement and defense spending.”
“Voters aren’t stupid,” said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist. (Conant’s client Tim Pawlenty called the “freeze” concept “kind of like somebody eating three Big Macs and then deciding they’re going to control their weight by ordering a Diet Coke.”) “The spending issue is not going anywhere, with or without this spending freeze. It only pertains to a small part of the budget, not even the fastest-growing part of the budget.”
Conant doubted that Obama had taken a Republican issue off the table for 2010, despite the instant polls. “Republicans do deserve credit for having the president acknowledge a problem,” he said. Other Republican strategists agreed that the “freeze” wouldn’t shift public opinion on which party can grapple with the deficit; one suggested that Obama’s embrace of the frame might make it easier for Republicans to run on government-cutting while dodging the tricky questions of entitlement or defense spending cuts.
“Ninety-five percent of Republican candidates, officials, staffers and advisers do not give a rat’s ass about fiscal restraint or government size,” one strategist told TWI. “At the end of the day, 95 percent of them believe people want to hear about fiscal restraint, but ultimately want government to give them stuff. This is how we default to talking about tax cuts, not spending, because everyone is afraid that if you criticize a spending item, you’ll offend someone. Well, you will. But when you bankrupt the whole country, which Obama’s proposal is not going to stop, you offend millions.”
Pence and other Republicans suggested that the “freeze” concept would come up again in a Friday meeting between the president and their party’s conference in Baltimore. Whatever the long-term political effect–whether or not a “freeze” happens–Obama critics are pleased that a year of arguments for more government spending are being swept aside.
“What he’s doing is actually pretty much what Bush didn’t have the guts to do in eight years,” said Veronique De Rugy, a libertarian economist at the Mercatus Center who has criticized the Keynesian spending policies of the Obama administration. “It’s nothing. But it’s more than Bush did.”
A pair of interesting cloture vote post-mortems from the conservative senator, whose hold on Bernanke started the too-small movement to stop him.
While the Salt Lake City Republican Party responded to the arrest of James O’Keefe by canceling his scheduled speech at an upcoming fundraiser, the embattled anti-ACORN muckraker is still scheduled to give a speech on “undercover journalism” at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco.
The event, which includes blogger Josh Wolf (who went to jail for not handing over video of protesters), is billed this way on the Club’s site: “A renegade insider shares his methods that revealed some unbecoming behaviors of a public-interest giant.”
Could O’Keefe still appear at this event after a judge ordered him to stay with his parents in New Jersey until the next hearing? I’ve called the Commonwealth Club to find out whether the event will be scrapped; a voicemail message listing current changes and cancellations did not mention the O’Keefe event.
The RNC’s decision to meet in Honolulu for its conference struck me as pretty defensible, given the surprise special congressional election that will be taking place in the state when Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) retires next month. But Jonathan Martin found skeptics high up in the GOP firmament who view the location choice as an expensive waste.
Asked about the meeting location, one veteran party strategist expressed a mix of bemusement and annoyance by simply replying with a YouTube link to a Don Ho video.
Joining Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who announced that she could no longer attend the National Tea Party Convention being held in her own state, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has pulled the plug.
“We’re out,” said Bachmann spokesman Dave Dziok. “It comes down to conflicting advice as to how these profits are going to be used after the fact. We’d rather err on the side of caution than do it and find out it’s improper… with somebody saying ‘they’re using the money from an event you were at to support this and this,’ which comes as a direct conflict with what you’re doing as a member of Congress.”… Both Blackburn and Bachmann sought legal guidance in recent days from lawyers in the House Ethics Committee. According to Dziok, they got “conflicting advice.”
The troubled–but still sold out–National Tea Party Convention got more bad news after Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said the for-profit nature of the event might prevent her from attending. Meanwhile, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)–who promoted the event at the December premiere of “Tea Party: The Documentary Film”–has already bailed on the event.
If Blackburn had attended, she would have shared a stage with Ana Puig, a Tea Party activist whose expertise is on how the Democrats are turning America into a “Banana Republic.”
From the schedule:
Speaker, ANA PUIG-“Correlations between the current Administration and Marxist Dictators of Latin America & MARSHA BLACKBURN, “Leadership” 9:00-10:00am
Here’s Puig making the argument at a 2009 Tea Party.
Foes of Gov. Charlie Crist (R-Fla.) are pouncing on this interview, in which host Jimmy Cefalo gives the governor a chance to distance himself from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) — an early endorser of Marco Rubio, Crist’s primary opponent — and Crist whiffs. But it’s not as bad as Crist’s enemies are saying.
“Why do you think you’ve been painted as a moderate Republican as opposed to a John McCain-like Republican?” asks Cefalo. “As opposed to someone like Jim DeMint, for example?”
“I really don’t know,” said Crist. “Probably because it’s the political season.”
As I said, this interview is being pushed hard by Crist foes — Erick Erickson of RedState tweeted it this morning and sent at least a few reporters scrambling to see what Crist actually said. The ease with which Rubio opponents can launch missiles at Crist is the most interesting part of this story.
Crist doesn’t make it too hard. Given a chance to attack the stimulus package, he says it “was the right thing to do” and stands by his support.
“Do I think everything in the stimulus is great? Of course not. Not many bills are perfect.”
Ken Vogel has an essential story looking at the not-so-secret, but rarely examined, collegiate conservative fund network that trained James O’Keefe, Stan Dai, and the other plotters in the Mary Landrieu phone tampering scandal. The Leadership Institute and the Collegiate Network helped O’Keefe and the others get trained and fund college newspapers; the Phillips Foundation gave Dai one of its fellowships. (Disclosure: From 2002 through 2004 I edited the Northwestern Chronicle, a paper that received funding from the Collegiate Network, and I was a CN fellow at USA Today from 2004 to 2005.)
Today, those organizations are condemning what their proteges got up to.
[LI’s Steven] Sutton said the Institute suggested to O’Keefe that he ask Rutgers officials to banish the breakfast cereal Lucky Charms from campus dining halls because it was offensive to Irish American students. O’Keefe took the advice a step further and video recorded the meeting, posting it on YouTube, which Sutton said was an example of him pushing the envelope.
Worth remembering: the Leadership Institute didn’t always say this about O’Keefe. I noted on Tuesday that LI President Morton Blackwell gave O’Keefe fulsome praise for the ACORN sting, happily crediting his LI training.
With training and a little financial help from the Leadership Institute, James O’Keefe started in 2004 an independent conservative student newspaper, The Centurion, at Rutgers, a large state university in New Jersey.
James fought the liberal administration at Rutgers. Leftists on campus stole whole issues of The Centurion. His paper continued and grew stronger because of the abuses.
James went to ten different training schools of the Leadership Institute. The Institute hired him for a year (2006-07) to help conservative students around the country form their own campus publications. He conducted 75 training programs for LI.
Among the useful things James learned at LI was: “Don’t fire all your ammunition at once.”
In September 2009, each day for five days James released new videos exposing ACORN’s outrageous practices. The roof caved in on ACORN. Obviously, the impact of his work would have been much less if James had released all those videos at the same time.
Now James is a national conservative hero, and I believe he will write his own ticket to a future career doing just what he loves to do.
Obviously, the ACORN tapes went further than the college stunts that LI now characterizes as over-the-top.
After the jump, the full text of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s GOP response to President Obama’s State of the Union address.
Republican Address to the Nation
For Public Release
Governor Bob McDonnell
Richmond
January 27, 2010
Good evening. I’m Bob McDonnell. Eleven days ago I was honored to be sworn in as the 71st governor of Virginia.
I’m standing in the historic House Chamber of Virginia’s Capitol, a building designed by Virginia’s second governor, Thomas Jefferson.
It’s not easy to follow the President of the United States. And my twin 18-year old boys have added to the pressure, by giving me exactly ten minutes to finish before they leave to go watch SportsCenter.
I’m joined by fellow Virginians to share a Republican perspective on how to best address the challenges facing our nation today.
We were encouraged to hear President Obama speak this evening about the need to create jobs.
All Americans should have the opportunity to find and keep meaningful work, and the dignity that comes with it.
Many of us here, and many of you watching, have family or friends who have lost their jobs.
1 in 10 American workers is unemployed. That is unacceptable.
Here in Virginia we have faced our highest unemployment rate in more than 25 years, and bringing new jobs and more opportunities to our citizens is the top priority of my administration.
Good government policy should spur economic growth, and strengthen the private sector’s ability to create new jobs.
We must enact policies that promote entrepreneurship and innovation, so America can better compete with the world.
What government should not do is pile on more taxation, regulation, and litigation that kill jobs and hurt the middle class.
It was Thomas Jefferson who called for “A wise and frugal Government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ….and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned…” He was right.
Today, the federal government is simply trying to do too much.
Last year, we were told that massive new federal spending would create more jobs ‘immediately’ and hold unemployment below 8%.
In the past year, over three million Americans have lost their jobs, yet the Democratic Congress continues deficit spending, adding to the bureaucracy, and increasing the national debt on our children and grandchildren.
The amount of this debt is on pace to double in five years, and triple in ten. The federal debt is already over $100,000 per household.
This is simply unsustainable. The President’s partial freeze on discretionary spending is a laudable step, but a small one.
The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level.
Without reform, the excessive growth of government threatens our very liberty and prosperity.
In recent months, the American people have made clear that they want government leaders to listen and act on the issues most important to them.
We want results, not rhetoric. We want cooperation, not partisanship.
There is much common ground.
All Americans agree, we need a health care system that is affordable, accessible, and high quality.
But most Americans do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government.
Republicans in Congress have offered legislation to reform healthcare, without shifting Medicaid costs to the states, without cutting Medicare, and without raising your taxes.
We will do that by implementing common sense reforms, like letting families and businesses buy health insurance policies across state lines, and ending frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals that drive up the cost of your healthcare.
And our solutions aren’t thousand-page bills that no one has fully read, after being crafted behind closed doors with special interests.
In fact, many of our proposals are available online at solutions.gop.gov, and we welcome your ideas on Facebook and Twitter.
All Americans agree, this nation must become more energy independent and secure.
We are blessed here in America with vast natural resources, and we must use them all.
Advances in technology can unleash more natural gas, nuclear, wind, coal, and alternative energy to lower your utility bills.
Here in Virginia, we have the opportunity to be the first state on the East Coast to explore for and produce oil and natural gas offshore.
But this Administration’s policies are delaying offshore production, hindering nuclear energy expansion, and seeking to impose job-killing cap and trade energy taxes.
Now is the time to adopt innovative energy policies that create jobs and lower energy prices.
All Americans agree, that a young person needs a world-class education to compete in the global economy. As a kid my dad told me, “Son, to get a good job, you need a good education.” That’s even more true today.
The President and I agree on expanding the number of high-quality charter schools, and rewarding teachers for excellent performance. More school choices for parents and students mean more accountability and greater achievement.
A child’s educational opportunity should be determined by her intellect and work ethic, not by her zip code.
All Americans agree, we must maintain a strong national defense. The courage and success of our Armed Forces is allowing us to draw down troop levels in Iraq as that government is increasingly able to step up. My oldest daughter, Jeanine, was an Army platoon leader in Iraq, so I’m personally grateful for the service and the sacrifice of all of our men and women in uniform, and a grateful nation thanks them.
We applaud President Obama’s decision to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. We agree that victory there is a national security imperative. But we have serious concerns over recent steps the Administration has taken regarding suspected terrorists.
Americans were shocked on Christmas Day to learn of the attempted bombing of a flight to Detroit. This foreign terror suspect was given the same legal rights as a U.S. citizen, and immediately stopped providing critical intelligence.
As Senator-elect Scott Brown says, we should be spending taxpayer dollars to defeat terrorists, not to protect them.
Here at home government must help foster a society in which all our people can use their God-given talents in liberty to pursue the American Dream. Republicans know that government cannot guarantee individual outcomes, but we strongly believe that it must guarantee equality of opportunity for all.
That opportunity exists best in a democracy which promotes free enterprise, economic growth, strong families, and individual achievement.
Many Americans are concerned about this Administration’s efforts to exert greater control over car companies, banks, energy and health care.
Over-regulating employers won’t create more employment; overtaxing investors won’t foster more investment.
Top-down one-size fits all decision making should not replace the personal choices of free people in a free market, nor undermine the proper role of state and local governments in our system of federalism. As our Founders clearly stated, and we Governors understand, government closest to the people governs best.
And no government program can replace the actions of caring Americans freely choosing to help one another. The Scriptures say “To whom much is given, much will be required.” As the most generous and prosperous nation on Earth, it is heartwarming to see Americans giving much time and money to the people of Haiti. Thank you for your ongoing compassion.
Some people are afraid that America is no longer the great land of promise that she has always been. They should not be.
America will always blaze the trail of opportunity and prosperity.
America must always be a land where liberty and property are valued and respected, and innocent human life is protected.
Government should have this clear goal: Where opportunity is absent, we must create it. Where opportunity is limited, we must expand it. Where opportunity is unequal, we must make it open to everyone.
Our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to create this nation.
Now, we should pledge as Democrats, Republicans and Independents–Americans all—to work together to leave this nation a better place than we found it.
God Bless you, and God Bless our great nation.
At a press availability earlier today, I asked Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) about the arrest of anti-ACORN muckraker James O’Keefe and what it meant for Republicans, like him, who’d partially based a case against the community group on O’Keefe’s reporting. Lee Fang of ThinkProgress asked further questions. All of that is in this video.
“It seems really convenient that this would happen now,” said King. As Fang pointed out, King’s defense of O’Keefe was not entirely consistent with his multiple attacks on ACORN based on media reports of its malfeasance.
At a mid-day press conference on Capitol Hill, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) launched a “Declaration of Health Care Independence” — a statement of principles that they hoped Democrats and voters would sign onto, but not one that would be backed by legislation or one that could be posted at their websites.
“On the 18th of April, 1775, there was a shot fired in Massachusetts that was heard around the world,” said Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.). “Last week, Massachusetts fired another shot heard around the world.” After speaking, Akin, like the other members, knelt down and signed a blown-up version of the declaration.
Bachmann said that the plan had been set in motion before Scott Brown’s upset election in Massachusetts, but all of the members at the conference agreed that Brown’s election had restarted — not killed — the health care debate. I asked whether any had spoken to Brown about his health care ideas, as Brown had backed a health care bill in Massachusetts that’s anathema to conservatives, and that includes a mandate that defies this declaration.
“The principles I heard him talk about during the campaign,” said King, “as distinct from the specific bill that you mentioned, I think are consistent with the language here.”
“One of the things you have to love about Scott Brown is — while I’m not familiar with that vote, since then, certainly, he has been in his pick-up truck, and he’s been talking to people,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). “It gave him access to what the people really think. What you heard him espouse are the same principles we’re talking about here.”
“It seemed from his campaign that he wasn’t too favorable about what had been concocted [here],” said Akin.
King said that every Republican in the House basically agreed with the declaration and that non-Republicans might sign on. “I think some Democrats will,” he said, “some conservative ones will.”