Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Mary Katharine Ham :: Townhall.com Columnist
Congressman Mike Pence talks with bloggers
by Mary Katharine Ham
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Congressman Pence: You know, I’ve been pleasantly surprised at the feedback that I’m getting in one-to-one meetings. I come to you from a morning of one-to-one meetings and I have an afternoon full of one-to-one meetings; I’ve been on the phone since last Wednesday. I’ve been pleasantly surprised to the degree to which almost every member I have spoken to has been willing to accept that our departure from fiscal discipline and limited government played an essential role in the erosion of the confidence of our core supporters around the country. Others will argue that there were other factors and I don’t quarrel with that. Iraq was a factor. Scandals were a factor. But there’s that old proverb that says, “If the foundations crumble, how can the righteous stand?” The foundation of the governing majority for the Republican Party in Washington D.C. was Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich’s commitment to a government that lives within its need, a government that is smaller after Republicans are there than it was before they got there, so the notion the government that governs least, governs best. You wrap all of that in a commitment to the traditional moral values that hold our community together and you have the Republican coalition. So I’ve been pleasantly surprised at the degree to which members will attribute some level of importance to the fact that we doubled the national debt under Republican control, and I as I said, we’re engaged in a very good debate and discussion among our colleagues about the degree to which that played a major factor. And let me just say, some of you have written very generous things about me and I’m grateful for that, but I don’t think any member of the 109th Congress on the Republican side of the aisle is blameless in this regard, with the possible exception of Jeff Blunt. Let me talk against interest here; I have requested earmarks since my first day in Congress, always saw it as part of my job. Always willing to stand by every earmark I request, and I am to this day. I voted for the Farm Bill, though I don’t expect to do that again. Some of my competitors in this race have never requested earmarks and have opposed the Farm Bill. The reality here is that we all bare some blame for walking away from a core commitment to fiscal discipline and reform. The reason I think I’m uniquely suited to lead our party back, is because on a couple of key, major signature issues, particularly in my work in leading the Republican Study Committee the last two years, I think I have a unique credibility in my commitment to limited government and fiscal discipline. I think that we will need that credibility to win back the confidence of the voters in the short time span that we have.

Question: What kind of response count have you been getting internally, and is there any time in the course of this week and a half campaign to go to newspaper editorial boards and try to get them to urge their local Congressman to support you, and if so, has that had any impact?

Congressman Pence: Two part question: The first part is we do have an internal count and no I’m not going to tell you what it is. But we’re encouraged and I think this is a very dynamic race. It’s more dynamic with three in it than it was with two. We’re very much in the show. I don’t precede any resentment. Joe Barton and I spoke for twenty minutes very cordially on the floor last night at his request. I have not yet spoken to Leader Boehner, but I think they get the sense and I get the sense that this is about a choice between good alternatives; this isn’t about running against one another. But let me say on the editorial board business, I was delighted when the Monthly Star Press endorsed me this morning, but I’m pretty solid on their Congressman’s vote. I have to tell you that while I believe, and this is meant as no disrespect – particularly to the writers in the room of very prominent national magazines and publications in print and on the internet – but quite candidly, running for a leadership position in Congress is a lot more like running senior class president, which is a race that I won. Running for senior class president is basically ends up to talking to about 200 people. And you’ve got cliques in high school. I had to get the shop guys to like me. I was pretty solid with the chess club and speech team, but the jocks could take me or leave me and I never got anywhere with the cheerleaders. This is very similar to the kind of campaign I’m involved in now. While they take some information from the outside, most of the information they take is from one another. It is a closely held process, and it’s one that I’m not altogether sure shouldn’t be closely held. I think members of Congress are, each of them, leaders – men and women of judgment – who have just proven their political acumen days earlier, and they have every right to apply their political judgment to who will lead our conference in this part of our national government. Our focus is on the members and talking to the members although I’m glad to be here.

Question: In your opening remarks, you mentioned Nancy Pelosi. I was wondering if you had any thoughts of her publicly embrace John Murtha for the Majority Leader?

Congressman Pence: You know, I’m just going to stick to my race. I will not be endorsing in that race. It does suggest that, despite the rather euphoric and understandable victory lap that our Democrat colleagues were taking in the press last week, that things over there will likely be more interesting than they initially appeared. I have to tell you what I think I bring to the table is a certain cheerful pugilism that fully expects a target-rich environment. I think the Democrats of majority will not miss the point in their willingness to advance everything from retreat in Iraq, to tax increase, to onerous regulations, to consideration of articles of impeachment. It is going to be an embarrassment of riches for those of you on this call. My challenge for the Republican conference will be to answer what will be an aggressive, liberal, big government agenda with substantive, thoughtful, main-stream conservative policy alternatives and a smile.

Question: We talk a lot in conservative circles about changing the culture of Congress and the culture of D.C. to get less spending, since government's rigged to just get bigger and bigger. We had a chance to do that and largely missed it, at least these past six years. But we did make a couple small steps-- earmark House rules and small budget reforms come to mind. What, logistically, happens to those small improvements now, and could you speak to how you work on changing culture from a minority position?

Congressman Pence: The House majority adopts the House rules. I was personally grateful to read in USA Today that our incoming speaker is committed to putting names on earmarks. We already did that, and I’m glad they didn’t do it again. There is much more that needs to be done. It is not just a matter of people knowing who has made the spending requests, it is that members should have opportunity at every stage of legislative process to call a vote and challenge specific earmark provision. I am not opposed to members of Congress under Article I of the Constitution, having the ability to vote to spend the people’s money in large ways and small ways. I am not categorically opposed to earmarking. I am categorically opposed to the kind of earmarking that has evolved over the decades, where members of Congress might anonymously slip spending projects involving millions or tens of millions of dollars, late into the night between the sheets, of ominous spending bills without ever any debate and any ever account or consideration. We have to push with greater transparency and greater accountability and a Republican minority will only be able to advocate those kinds of changes. As we talk about ethics reform, and I expect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will make an effort to move an ethics package, it will be important not only that we change the way lobbyists spend money, but we have to change the way members of Congress spend the people’s money, and it will be imperative that members of Congress around thought leaders around this table and around the country press our new Democrat majority to put our money where their mouth is and to change the fundamental way that we spend the people’s money relative to earmarks. The answer is greater accountability, greater transparency, and greater challengability. If all we do is put names on earmarks which can be added without four in the morning, 2 hours before a 1500-page bill is passed, we have not made progress. Whether we’re calling them on it or working with them to create a truly bipartisan bill that serves the interest of the American people, it will be the role of the minority and the Minority Leader to press the substance of change.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Mary Katharine Ham is a contributor to Townhall Magazine.

Be the first to read Mary Katharine Ham's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Dear Mike Pence
No amnesty,No amnesty,No amnesty,No amnesty,No amnesty,No amnesty,No amnesty. Do you get the idea? Build a damn 30 foot high, double layer , unscalable fence. We cannot deport 12 million illegals...in one day, one month, or one year.It MAY take 10 years, but it can be done. Deport the ILLEGAL ones. Expidite the ones who are going through the LEGAL process. Replace the ILLEGALS with LEGAL immigrants!! What an idea!! Holy cow!!! Giving jobs to LEGAL immigrants that want to come to America legally!!

National Capitulation to Invasion?
Dear Mike Pence,



When you talk "compromise," it is best to consider the fact that there can be no compromise until Mexico is held fully accountable for the breaking into, occupation, and attempted annexation of American territory.

The nation of Mexico imagines that it has the right to interfere in the American political process, by going to the United Nations to protest our border fence plans.

The Mexican nation has NOT gotten the message from the common American, that America is largely an Anglo Saxon nation--and will remain that way--and that we are not "dying out as a race," as the racist Mechista would portray us.

Mexico must understand and respect our historic national borders, and distinct cultural heritage. It must abandon the quest for the "Reconquista" of American territory as a prerequisite for any guest worker program.

Mexican understanding must be witnessed by the signing of a formal peace treaty between the United States and Mexico, in which Mexico forever abandons its designs on American territory. Without such a formal document; "comprehensive immigration reform" will NEVER occur.

Anyone would have to be a fool to tout a guest worker program, when everywhere across the globe where guest workers are hosted, there has been chaos, murder and arson--all committed by these workers. In addition, our lackluster president deems it wise to fight a so-called "war on terror," while leaving the back door of this nation wide open to invasion and infiltraton by al-Qaeda operatives.

Couple this basic fact of invasion, along with the president's ambitious, treasonous plan to destroy the United States of America, by dissolving our borders, and importing 66 million Mestizos--to thwart the will of the American people--and you have a fully "fuzzy" formula for "comprehensive" immigration reform.

The American people are tired of playing host to Mexico's parasite. We demand a value-for value relationship from Mexico, whereby Mexico pays its way with Mexican oil--at a greatly reduced price-- to compensate the American taxpayer for serving as a safety valve for that failed nation.

Any guest worker program must have certain guarantees, namely that any American worker will not be undercut--as was the case when blacks were denied Hurricane Katrina clean-up work, because the Mexicans arrived to "take over."

Guest workers cannot become American citizens, for they are foregin invaders, making dual citizenship extortion demands in our city streets., so that they may further erode the self-determination of the American people. In short, they are Mexican nationals, and must remain thus. It is not the responsibility of the American taxpayer to subsidize an alien culture which comes to supplant the American way of life, even as we are taxed for "nation-building" in chaotic theaters.

Guest workers should receive fully subsidized housing, at least a minimum wage, health care--paid for by the Mexican government--and driver's licenses which identify them as foreign nationals. They must be put on equal wages with the American worker, so that there will be no special advantage to big business for hiring slave labor, which displaces Americans.

Any guest worker program which grants a path to American citizenship for guest workers, will NOT be tolerated by the American people. We deny recognition to these Mexican invaders as our alleged "fellow countrymen." They can never be more than guests in the eyes of the American people.

George W. Bush will go down in history as an arch fool, who almost lost the country to illegal alien invasion. Please do not allow the president--who does not have the backing of his base--to unilaterally "decide" to abolish the borders of this nation.

True "comprehensive immigration reform" means protection and eternal vigilance in protecting the interests of the American people--not Mexican nationals. We are indeed- "vigilantes."

The American people do not subscribe to, nor support the vainglorious theories of a president who would be king. We firmly reject the creedal nation proposition of the Bush weltanschauung, and assert that we are a people of blood and soil, shaped by the distinct character of the American landscape.

It is not in the national interest to import millions upon millions of "new citizens," who do not share a common patrimony, blood line, or national outlook, shaped by a superior way of life. The Third World square peg cannot be hammered into the round hole of the First World.

We have just begun to whittle this arrogant president--who does not hear the anguished cries of our people--down to size.

Our message of compromise has thus been laid down as a demand--not a request. There will be no perks for Mexico, as long as it functions as an invader of this nation.

Finally, we do not "compromise" with big business interests, which are destroying nation-states of the globe, to replace them with a "New World Order," designed by Big Brother.
There is a great struggle between the United States and Mexico over American real estate. That is why we find ourselves wondering what to do with this Mexican army in our midst.
This is a life and death struggle for national survival, not a question of whether we need to adapt ourselves to the Mexican occupation army.
The American people do not make concessions to the invader. We issue orders.


Sincerely,

Thor H. Asgardson
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.