Pence also had some interesting things to say on immigration. I've written multiple times in the past about how smart his own immigration proposal is, and intelligent folks like Newt Gingrich and our friend David Keene of the American Conservative Union agree; some other conservatives (especially at NRO) have reacted as if Pence had committed some apostasy. Before we get to what Pence said today, a reminder is in order: the Pence plan incorporates almost the entirety of the House "get tough on the border" bill and then adds a free-market, no-amnesty provision by which wannabe guest workers must first leave the country, and then can return but only through an employment center, for a specified job, with a biometric ID card, after passing a security check, under strict conditions -- and those employment centers would be run by competitive private enterprise, not the government. Still, the good folks at NRO have seemed to miss some crucially important parts of Pence's proposal (this is all Quin's summary so far, not Pence's), so it was good to hear Pence emphasize them in this morning's event sponsored by TAS.
The Spectacle Blog
Philip got most of the big points from Pence today; let me add a few more from my notes. First, I found it quite interesting that he said that "the path to the majority [in the House] goes through Indiana." I think he's right, and he was not just exhibiting Hoosier bias. While most of the media focus is on the endangered GOP moderates in the Northeast, the fact is that it's hard to see a scenario where the GOP loses the House if it holds its endangered seats in the heartland; Indiana and Iowa are key here. Pence noted that Indiana Reps. Chocola, Sodrel and Hostettler are all supposedly under the gun, but he offered hope for all of them. Chocola (one of my favorite House conservatives, by the way) has, Pence said, run a "flawless campaign." Sodrel will win, Pence said, because his opponent Baron Hill is wrong on abortion and on homosexual "marriage" in a district that is "pro-family and pro-life." And Hostettler, likened by Pence to a sturdy piece of limestone (or something like that), has "the most effective grassroots apparatus" anywhere in the country.
Just got back from our inaugural Newsmaker Breakfast meeting featuring Congressman Mike Pence of
Pence said the Republican Party's drift toward supporting big government arose out of a mistaken perception among Republican leaders that they could try to beat Democrats at their own game. The justification for No Child Left behind was "Democrats have a huge advantage on education." A similar rationale fueled the Medicare prescription drug plan. The reality, Pence argues, is that both policies alienated conservatives without winning anybody else over -- and neither programs are popular. "We will never win by being them, we will only win by being us," Pence said.
Lost in the midst of security votes in the Senate is another issue important to American consumers: video choice.
According to Capitol Hill sources, the Senate does not intend to bring Senator Ted Stevens' video-choice bill to the floor any time soon, perhaps not at all before the legislative year expires. The bill would streamline telecom and other companies abilities to offer consumers an alternative to cable TV, which in many places across the country has a monopoly hold on local TV franchises.
Now comes word of a bipartisan poll that shows that the vast majority (82%) of likely voters favor choice in cable TV because it would likely result in lower prices, better customer service (81%), delivery of new technologies and enhanced services to customers (78%).
The video choice bill is a winner for Republicans, if only because it represents a "hidden tax" cut for consumers, about $100 to $200 less annually in lower cable TV bills per household, according to a study by Banc of America.
A new gig has come my way. I'll be subbing for Michael Reagan on his radio show today (and Monday thru Wednesday next week). Today, we'll be doing more tributes to Richard Armitage, reviewing the McCain problem on the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (tortured law, not tortured prisoners) and talking about today's UN events. Hope ya can tune in, 6-9 pm EDT on RadioAmerica.
While Democrats sing "Don't Fence Me In" on immigration policy, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is doing just that to Democrats with his move last night to bring a vote to the Senate floor on legislation that would build about 700 miles of real fencing, and high-tech border security for the rest of the southern borderland.
Political hiccups aside, Frist deserves credit for lining up some interesting and politically exculpatory legislative votes moving into the election-year recess. It isn't an accident that Republicans are seeing an up tick in opinion polls. While the White House has been doing a good messaging job, the fact that Frist's leadership team was able to lower Congress's profile and hit on issues important to Americans is another reason the GOOP will hold on to both the House and the Senate in 2006.
Google is announcing that it is creating a political action committee named Google NetPAC. Google's political activities have been an embarrassment to the company in the past year as almost all donations from the corporation's executives flow to Democrats or extreme-left wing causes, and money Google has used to fund Internet industry activities have gone almost exclusively to groups like MoveOn.org.
To blunt this criticism, Google hired a former Bush Administration official for its Washington office, and created the impression that she would be directing Washington policy. Apparently that was simply a ruse, because well-known Democrat, Alan Davidson, Google's Washington policy counsel, has created the impression in the media that he will oversee the PAC. So much for Google's outreach to Republicans.
The religious left is rising up -- again -- in an effort to counter the power of evangelical conservatives, The Washington Times reports today. This time it's through the formation of a group called "Red Letter Christians," who "says it bases its actions and political philosophy on the words of Jesus, which appear in red lettering in some versions of the Bible."
Also yesterday, Americans United for Separation of Church and State announced its new initiative against election-year politicking in churches. It will mail more than 117,000 letters to churches in 11 competitive election states informing them of Internal Revenue Service regulations.
Its executive director, the Rev. Barry Lynn, said the IRS has issued new guidelines to ensure churches don't endanger their tax-exempt status by endorsing or opposing candidates. He criticized Focus on the Family for seeking coordinators in evangelical churches to distribute voter guides and engage voters.
"This is nothing less than an old-fashioned political machine," Mr. Lynn said.
One expects built-in counter-biases where challenges are put to prevailing biases -- particularly when the challenger is the academic establishment, and the challenged is the establishment's fevered vision of what it thinks the academic establishment really is.
And we all know that what it really is is systemically biased against women. "Biased," in this case, means not rigged to produce a certain robust outcome: "more" women scientists and engineers. How much more? And why that particular amount? Silence! Bow thy head and ponder the vast evil of such institutional phenomena as this, propounded by the Panel Report of the National Academy of the Sciences: "anyone lacking the work and family support traditionally provided by a 'wife' is at a serious disadvantage."
Just came back from a Claremont Institute panel featuring Mark Helprin, William Kristol and Christopher Hitchens entitled, "September 11, 2001: Five Years Later." As one would expect given the lineup, the discussion was intellectually vigorous. Toward the end of the panel, Hitchens caused an uproar when he criticized the Pope's recent comments for being anti-reason and said something along the lines of, "We are fighting a war to defend secularism." He drew boos soon after when he continued to attack the Vatican, especially for what he saw as a history of coddling totalitarian regimes (such as when Tariq Aziz was a guest of the Vatican).