I. On What a Secular Republican Is

The Secular Republican, when in office, need not be pro-choice, pro-gay rights, or of a liberal denomination of Christianity. He may actively support figures like James Dobson, in fact. What distinguishes men like Ronald Reagan, certainly a secular Republican, and even Newt Gingrich, who is fairly secular, from men like Mike Huckabee is their ability to embrace pragmatism, party-building, and push a multi-faceted agenda that caters to more than abortion, homosexuality, and “faith in the public square.” He will never be mistaken for a “religious right” figure, even if he is able to garner support from that base.

This is not to say that irreligious men or social moderates are not also secular Republicans: Rudy Giuliani is clearly a secular Republican, as are John McCain and Fred Thompson. But overall, their credo tends to be: no litmus test. Abortion is not a litmus test. Religious belief is not a litmus test. It’s okay to believe in evolution. What unites Republicans — as even Mike Huckabee has admitted recently, if only by accident — is their belief in capitalism and a strong national defense.

II. On Religious Conservative Dominance

To be quite frank, religious conservatives are playing the party bully right now. With the exception of the Club for Growth, the party-purifying elements come solely from the religious right, which attempts to ‘weed out’ unacceptable candidates. Even John McCain and Rudy Giuliani felt compelled to suck up to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, despite their blame-America-first comments on the 700 Club shortly after 9/11. Mitt Romney felt that he needed to defend his Mormon faith in a speech in which he proclaimed that “freedom requires religion.” Mike Huckabee was catapulted to prominence after his wins in Iowa and throughout the South. Thanks to our own Aron Goldman, we know that, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, and Mike Huckabee don’t believe in evolution. Huckabee doesn’t even know what it’s about (”if you want to believe you came from apes, go ahead and believe that”). Ron Paul also doubted evolution later on, contending that it was “only a theory” (yeah, like…gravity).

And let’s not forget that Tom Ridge and Joseph Lieberman were scratched off of the McCain short list for the vice-presidential nomination because of contentions by McCain aides that the social conservative base would surely revolt if a pro-choicer were put onto the ticket. Despite McCain’s consistently pro-life voting record, the religious right did not trust him on the issue, due to his lack of zeal on the matter.

And as commenter MetroIndependent pointed out: why is there a post on this site about religious belief? What does it have to do with Republican politics? The answer is clear.

III. The Coming Secular Republican Revival

Hot on the heels of the religious right’s denunciation of the secular nature of the wonderful National Council for a New America, our 2010 candidate recruitments (and prospects) are noticeably lacking in religious conservatives. George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Rob Simmons, Charlie Crist, and perhaps John Kasich — these are not religious conservatives. Even Rob Portman, arguably our most conservative recruit,  is a fairly down-the-line conservative, but hardly a religionist. He is a former trade representative, White House budget manager, and alumnus of the 1994 Republican Revolution. Pat Toomey himself was formerly pro-choice, a la our friend Mittens.

Noticeably lacking are Huckabee-style conservatives. They’re running on empty right now. Who is their leader? Well, Huckabee is the king of the hill. And Sarah Palin is queen. They’re biding their time for 2012, not looking to 2010. While the moderate and center-right factions of the party rebuild, the religious right is biding its time. And that’s just fine. We’ll be a big tent again, with new representatives for the secular right, once these fine men and women assume office.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

I so happen to be the media director for Youth for Western Civilization — the organization that sponsored Tom Tancredo at UNC — at American University. YWC originated at American University. Its national president, Kevin DeAnna, is a current student there.

About a month ago, we featured Congressman Tancredo at AU. We drew about three hundred protesters, all of whom were respectful and silent. (Tancredo actually complimented the protesters on their respect, noting that things have gotten ugly in the past.) A brief account of that can be read here.

YWC thrives on dragging liberals into the light: we feature controversial speakers in order to draw attention to the issues surrouding the beauty of Western values. We feature Tancredo to speak of the realities surrounding assimilation and multiculturalism.

We like to think that we’ve struck a chord when we have wannabe-fascists shattering windows. So be mad at the leftists, but don’t be too mad: all this sort of tactic does is make our numbers swell and move those who witness it to the right.

I will note that Robert Spencer, the author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, is being brought to American University (on my request!) on April 27th at 9:30. Anyone in the DC area who is interested is encouraged to attend.

Anyone with questions about YWC is encouraged to contact me!

—

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.

This will be published in my university paper, The Eagle, tomorrow.

—

Gosh, those “progressives” sure caught that mean old Tom Tancredo in a trap, didn’t they? A few weeks ago, the former congressman was brought to campus by the newly-launched right-wing group Youth for Western Civilization (full disclosure: I am media director for the organization) to give a speech on the importance of assimilation and the value of Western culture. He was met with a few hundred black-shirted juveniles holding up signs vapidly proclaiming that “America is Multicultural.” The pinnacle of the event for those “progressives” was when Tancredo fumbled around the question of “whether the Pilgrims should have assimilated with the Native Americans.”

It was the second question of the night with the implicit assumption that there was something exceptionally virtuous about Native American culture. But it’s highly ironic that liberals would be so enamored with Native Americans. By all accounts, they weren’t exactly “progressive”: gender roles were quite rigid and “inter-communal outreach” to other tribes wasn’t very high on the agenda. Cherokees were often slave-owners, subscribing to racist notions toward blacks that were indistinguishable from those held by the British. Moreover, Native Americans frequently fought wars for land.

The last point is the crux of the argument that Tancredo should have made: the British, in seizing land via arms from the Native Americans, more or less did assimilate to the Native Americans’ way of thinking. To paraphrase the esteemed Thomas Sowell: the Native Americans were probably very upset that they lost so many battles, but the idea that they had a problem with the ethos of seizing land through armed conquest is laughable. Contrary to liberal sentiment, Native American culture didn’t really resemble the movie Pocahontas.

Of course, Native American culture was not monolithic, but then, neither was British/American culture. The large-scale abandonment of the war-for-land ethos is a highly modern conception, and one that was fueled by — horror of horrors! — the West after the post-war restructuring of international relations.

Liberal love of 1700’s Native American culture is driven by nothing more than a weird fixation on a contrived, mangled version of “diversity.” But the whole push for “diversity” and “multiculturalism” is really nothing more than the promotion of the concept that identity matters more than ideas. Liberal diversity consists of: white liberals, black liberals, Hispanic liberals, gay liberals, straight liberals, rich liberals, poor liberals, female liberals, male liberals … (In a hilarious fit of irony, the leadership circle of Youth for Western Civilization includes a gay man, a Jewish man, a Hispanic woman, and a couple of international students.)

After the struggles of various oppressed groups conclude in victory, conservatives invariably come to treat them like normal members of society. Liberals still treat them as if they are living in a perpetual state of oppression — mostly because they have a stake in whether blacks, gays and Hispanics feel oppressed. If any of those communities ever got the crazy idea that individuals can succeed on their own merits or that Islamo-fascists aren’t too keen on gay rights or women’s rights, then there’d be little sense in voting for liberals.

The true agenda of the breed of “progressives” that protested Tancredo’s sensible speech is ultimately nothing more than mindlessly bashing America. The United States has been a trailblazer for women’s rights, gay rights and the rights of racial and religious minorities. These are classically liberal aims. Why has the modern left decided that bashing conservatives is more important than sticking up for them?

—

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

In this interview — Race42012’s second with the Congressman — I speak with Tom Tancredo about what he thinks we must do to win Hispanics, who he considers the anti-illegal immigration torch passed to in Congress, and what he thinks of the Race 4 2012.

He was speaking at the inaugural celebration of a new conservative youth group, Youth for Western Civilization, of which he is the honorary national chairman.

—

Sum up the purpose of your message here tonight to Youth for Western Civilization.

CPAC has become, unfortunately, has become a little too PC and needs to be yanked back into the conservative — into a conservative sort of — serving a conservative cause. And especially on the issue of immigration, they are running away from it here, they dont wanna talk about it. They accuse me of being the reason why the Republicans lost, but I suggested that if more Republicans had had my message, we would have been more successful than we were, and you cannot pander your way out of a losing position. You cannot pander your way out of the minority and that’s what one of the things is that I want to get across tonight.

Setting aside the issue of immigration, how do you propose that the GOP win over Hispanic voters?

It’s the same thing as when you ask what the Republican Party has to do to win black voters — there’s hardly anything [you can do], quite frankly. Hispanic voters do not vote as monolithically as black voters, but it’s a pretty set figure, at about 65% for Democrats, 35%-40% for Republicans. That’s the way it is, that’s really not going to change for — I get 38% of the vote in Colorado in a poll running in the governor’s race — so what the heck, what does that tell you? If Tom Tancredo can get as much as George W. Bush did — we have to try to appeal to them on the basis of family values issues and all the rest — immigration is not the issue that they find most compelling. And in fact, we can get a lot of people on our side by upholding the rule of law. And when you come here legally, you have great advantages and you shouldn’t lose those advantages to people who come here illegally.

But there was a noticeable decline in McCain’s share of the vote, when compared to George W. Bush’s –

But he lost more in white males than he lost in Hispanics! But if you look at the percentages –

So you ascribe it more to a national shift than —

We lost Hispanics for the same reason we lost white males, white females, soccer moms — you know, it was no greater — the percentage was no greater in other categories.

I’m an American University student who attended your speech the other night. As we both saw, there were several student protesters that were there not to listen, but to speak. Do you think that it’s possible to get through to such students, and how?

No. You’re not gonna get through to them, but there are, I think, students there who I believe, uh, heard at least part of the message, and to the extent that they were willing to, um, to the extent that you come in there with even a marginally open mind, I hope I was able to at least make them think a little bit about this topic, and that was the purpose. You don’t change people’s minds, especially after they have been force fed that from the cult of multiculturalism for however long they’ve been in school — 13 or 14 years of education — in that environment, you don’t change people’s minds in one speech. But what I hope I could do is make a few people think twice about the possibility to make people see that what I say has nothing to do with race, but because I believe in all my heart that we have issues in this country of major importance that have to be discussed and debated, and to the extent that they allowed me to do so without constant interruptions, I am greateful to them and I respect the fact that they did that. I know what happened the minute I started to leave — there was all this noise — but there had to be people that saw through that. I think so.

You, of course, are known nationally as a staunch proponent of Western values, a tough immigration stance, and national sovereignty. Who, if anyone, would you say, has been passed the mantle in Congress?

Steve King, from Iowa. Ted Poe, from Texas — and that’s probably it, actually.

We are Race42012, after all — any early prospects that look promising to you?

No. No. I mean, I endorsed Romney when I got out of the race — but what we are desperately looking for is a leader, and that means not just a person who has the right ideas, but someone who can actually articulate them. I was very disappointed the other night to see Bobby Jindal not articulate them. He has all the substance in the world, but he didn’t have the style — and unfortunately, you need both in today’s political arena.

…

Romney is the best one we have going for us right now, but I want you to underline right now. But in this business, tomorrow could mean a completely different stage to look at.

REP. TOM TANCREDO AND SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Manchester, NH – Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Sheriff Joe Arpaio will be joined by national and local leaders at a press conference to emphasize the need to end illegal immigration. They will discuss their own personal perspectives and challenges with illegal immigration and contrast Governor Romney’s record and proposals to end illegal immigration with that of other candidates.

Where: Romney for President New Hampshire Headquarters
359 Elm Street
Manchester, NH

When: Saturday, January 5
1:30 p.m.

Who: Rep. Tom Tancredo
Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Rockingham County Sheriff Dan Linehan
Rockingham County Attorney Jim Reams
Bay Buchanan
Demos Chrissof

So says MSNBC.

UPDATES:

“At a news conference, Tancredo said he did not agree with Romney on all issues, but believes that the governor has a “solid record” on immigration issues and can “go the distance.” link

Cillizza:

Tancredo’s biggest impact on the field came as he bowed out of a contest that he never had any real chance of winning. Tancredo had made tough stand on immigration the centerpiece and organizing principle of his campaign, and his endorsement of Romney could prove a powerful validator of the former governor’s bona fides on the issue.

Jim G.:

How’s that for a response to the “Sanctuary Mansion” line: “How much of an immigration squish can I be, I was endorsed by Tancredo!”

Fox News and NBC report that Tom Tancredo will drop out of the race tomorrow, and he will likely endorse a candidate.

Most speculation suggests that he will endorse Fred Thompson.

However, Mitt Romney is apparently pushing hard for Tancredo’s backing too.

Jonathan Martin has the story. H/T to comment by Iowa.

While it might not seem like a big deal on the national level, Tancredo did have strong support in Iowa, especially over the summer. They were very active on the local level, and a poll of Iowa GOP leaders predicted he would come in 2nd in the straw poll in an informal survey conducted by Real Clear Politics in early August. He came in 4th with 14%, which was 1961 votes.

Immediately after the straw poll, Tancredo’s organization in Iowa seemed to fall apart, or that is at least what I perceived on the ground. So its unclear if his supporters already went to different camps or not.

UPDATE: Tancredo’s Iowa press secretary told the Des Moines Register that Tancredo has no scheduled campaign appearances scheduled following tomorrow’s announcement.

Hat tip to mornincoffee…

Fred Thompson’s tax plan, released this morning, seperated his position from some of the other contenders. Thompson is one of the few GOP hopefuls that offers the flat tax. The plan is a qualified endorsement of the Taxpayers Choice Act, or the “flat tax.” With this plan, which is outlined here, in pdf, Thompson has taken a pretty bold step, as he did with his social security plan.

From the AP:

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson proposed an income tax plan Sunday that would allow Americans to choose a simplified system with only two rates: 10 percent and 25 percent.
Thompson’s proposal, announced on “Fox News Sunday,” would allow filers to remain under the current, complex tax code or use the flat tax rates.
Asked whether the plan would cut too deeply into federal revenues, the former Tennessee senator and actor said experts “always overestimate the losses to the government” when taxes are cut.

“We’ve known for years any time we have lowered taxes and any time we’ve lowered tax rates, we’ve seen growth in the economy,” Thompson said.
Thompson added that money would be saved by his Social Security reform plan. He proposed that workers younger than 58 receive smaller monthly Social Security checks than they are now promised. Individuals could contribute 2 percent of their paycheck to a personal retirement account, an amount that would be matched by the Social Security trust fund.
The retirement plan “faces up to the fact that Social Security is going bankrupt and we’re going to have to do something about it,” he said.

The fact is that he has followed up on his promise of overhauling the current tax code. The plan has been supported by the Heritage Foundation, Steve Forbes, the Club for Growth, the CATO Institute, Chief Justice John Roberts, Sam Brownback, and Dick Armey, to name a few.

Among the other GOP contenders, John McCain has been supportive of it. Mike Huckabee favored the tax, but has now become an advocate of the FAIR Tax, which is not the same thing (see below). Tancredo and Ron Paul support it (he supports no tax). Rudy Giuliani’s position on the issue is not that clear, but I was late to the whole debate on his position. He seems to favor a more moderate form of revision, but does not endorse the tax. Romney also favors a simplification, but has criticized the flat tax as recently as April, and has said that he is opposed to it. Sam Brownback proposed a very similar plan to Thompson’s before he departed from the race.

However, according to CNBC, no major Republican candidate was, as of 10/9:

“currently running on a flat income tax,though Mike Huckabee is pushing a flat consumption (sales) tax to replace the income tax altogether “

Well, I guess we have one now.

The Flat Tax was originally authored by Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka in this book, published and assisted by the Hoover Institute.

In arguing for the proposal, Race42008 contributor DeRoy Murdocke, in April of this year, wrote that:

Americans deserve a voluntary flat tax. Those who love this gargantuan Tax Code, its multiple rates, and baroque intricacies, should be free to keep filing form after form, if that makes them happy. Meanwhile, those who prefer a flat rate with few if any deductions should be free to choose a postcard that would ask one’s name, address, and income, and a simple calculation for, say, 17 percent thereof.

Politically, a voluntary flat tax would let issue-starved Republicans and conservatives avoid a wrestling match with Democrats and liberals over keeping or scrapping the charitable or home-mortgage deductions. Instead, the Right can argue for giving Americans the freedom to select between two available systems. The sales slogan is simple: “It’s your tax. It’s your choice.” Let the Left argue against granting Americans that option. The Right can win that fight.

Next year, Utahans will choose between either a traditional, six-bracket tax (from 2.3 to 6.98 percent) with exemptions and write-offs, or a simple 5.35 percent flat tax without deductions. The Beehive State will join flat-taxing Estonia, Slovakia, and Ukraine, all of which have seen their economies energized by a single tax rate on income. Even Russia has jettisoned its three-bracket system and its 30 percent top rate on incomes above $5,000. Instead, it has embraced a 13 percent flat-rate tax.

“Before the flat tax, most salaries were paid as cash under the table. That almost has disappeared,” said Yuri Mamchur, director of the Real Russia Project at Seattle’s Discovery Institute. “It’s easier to pay 13 percent than to avoid it.” The former Muscovite added: “The flat tax contributed to economic growth, but more importantly, it sped Russia’s return to the rule of law.”

Hoover Institution economist Alvin Rabushka concurs. “The low flat rate contributed to the decline in capital flight [and] improved taxpayer compliance [in Russia],” he said. In fact, tax evasion in Russia has gone the way of the Gulag. Since the Kremlin adopted the flat tax on January 1, 2001, revenues have swelled 128 percent after inflation.

If the flat tax is good enough for the former Evil Empire, it’s good enough for America’s embattled taxpayers.

On the heels of his announcement that he will not seek re-election in the US House:

After the third quarter, Representative Tancredo’s campaign had $110,000 cash on hand with nearly $300,000 in debt. Therefore, as the Politico reports, “He’s now mulling whether to take public funds to keep his bid — and his issue — alive deeper into the contest.”

Tancredo has said in the past he has every intention of staying in the race at least through New Hampshire, as shown by his recent filing for the primary there — but sometimes the hard reality of just being out of money catches up with you. Just ask Senator Brownback.

Tom Tancredo will retire from the House of Rep.’s at the end of his current term:

“It’s the fact that I really believe I have done all I can do in the House, especially about the issue about which I care greatly (immigration),” Tancredo, 61, told the newspaper Sunday night.

I don’t really agree with their results, or at least am not sure what criteria they were using, but Forbes has posted a new candidate analysis page rating the ideology of the candidates. I thought it was interesting and might start some debate, either way.

Each name is linked to the candidate’s analysis page at forbes.com’s candidate central:

Sam Brownback:

(more…)

Tom Tancredo: “Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction.”

Link.

Hat-tip: Aron.

We are just three days out from the Ames Straw Poll right now – here are the public strategies of each of the campaigns for this seminal moment in the Race 4 2008:

• Mitt Romney has sent out a direct mailer, set up an 800 number for people to call for free tickets, bus rides, and food, and has set up incentives (like being on the Romney Wall of Fame and getting a free t-shirt) for folks who bring 5 people, knock on 50 doors, make 100 phone calls, or recruit people to ride the Romney buses to Ames. Team Mitt has rented more than 99 air conditioned buses for the event – at least one for every county in Iowa – and the guests on those buses will be treated to free food and a recorded message from Romney. Once at the straw poll, Romney’s tent will be replete with more free food (local Iowa BBQ), local bands, and yes, inflatable bouncy things for the kids. And finally, the Romney campaign is airing this new commercial starting today until Saturday:

• Sam Brownback has at least 45 interns at his Iowa headquarters, most of them with only one job: man the phones. Interns make phone calls to Iowans twelve hours a day, six days a week to try and round up support for the Ames Straw Poll. And recently, they have a pretty unique way of doing it, too: they are calling Iowans who support John McCain and telling them, “McCain has chosen not to participate in the straw poll, and we’d like you to show your support for his values by voting for Brownback.” Officials in the Brownback campaign say their phone efforts have so far “exceeded our internal expectations.” Team Brownback also is recruiting people to be bus captains, that is, to sign up at least 50 people to ride a bus together to Ames on Saturday. They are using a military theme for the campaign, saying that volunteers are joining the “Brownback Army” and anyone interested in going to Ames should call their “Brownback Bus General”. Once at the site, Sam’s tent will be the site of what his campaign calls “An afternoon of prayer and celebration” (the mailer even has the Holy Spirit as a dove and some heavenly beams of light) – a direct appeal to religious conservatives. Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe v Wade, will be at Sam’s tent as well, explaining her conversion to the pro-life camp. (Bonus points for anyone who can spot the irony there.)
• Mike Huckabee doesn’t have any sort of transportation organization to get people to Ames, but he is offering free tickets like the other campaigns, and the week leading up to the straw poll he is spending touring dozens of cities in Iowa encouraging people to go there and vote for him. Mike has told reporters that several of Sam Brownback’s supporters have told him they now plan on supporting him at Ames instead because of the recent tussle Sam and Mike had about religious issues, and that he is aiming for a third place finish in the poll (although a 4th or 5th place finish “wouldn’t be a campaign ender” either). Once at Ames, Mike plans on attracting folks to his tent by offering the famous Hope watermelons from Arkansas. Hope watermelons are the largest in the world, and Huck will be displaying 150-pounders at his tent to attract attention.
• Tom Tancredo has 58 buses setup to go to Ames, and he also is offering free tickets and has been spending all his time recently in Iowa rounding up supporters for the straw poll. His campaign is also encouraging supporters to do “door to door literature drops” throughout Iowa leading up to Saturday, with literature, of course, provided by Tancredo’s Iowa office. He is also building what his campaign officially calls “The Army Against Amnesty” to support Tom at Ames.
• Tommy Thompson has buses and tickets available for free to his supporters, and has a non-800 phone number available for folks to call for more information. He is aiming for a first or second place finish at the straw poll; otherwise, he says, he will probably drop out of the race. He has been making his “Common Sense Solutions” tour across Iowa lately, and has really camped out in the state since the campaign began. I could not find any further details of his plans anywhere.
• Duncan Hunter has no organization that I could find anywhere, and is even making his supporters buy their own tickets to the straw poll.
• Ron Paul’s supporters are encouraging one another to promise support to Mitt Romney to secure free transportation to Ames, and then vote for Ron Paul once they get there. The Paul campaign has purchased 500 tickets that they are giving out to “eligible Iowa residents” for the straw poll.

Sunday, August 5
6 days before the Ames Straw Poll
Des Moines, Iowa
ABC 7
9:00 EST — 8:00 CST

I’ll be live-blogging from the spin-room as the sparks will be flying and will get some good pics and coverage for R42008.

Race 4 2008 is pleased to present the following interview with Rep. Tom Tancredo.

Like many of his Republican competitors, Rep. Tancredo is spending a great deal of time campaigning in Iowa in the run-up to the Ames Straw Poll on August 11th.

I was fortunate to be able to sit down for a few minutes with Rep. Tancredo between events in Ankeny, Iowa, where we discussed his physical and ideological resemblance to prominent Iowa politicians, the (perhaps) exciting voyage of his ancestors on their journey across Iowa to Colorado, and minor issues like our nation’s immigration crisis. _______________________________________________________________________________________

KWN: Have you been mistaken for Congressman King while on the campaign trail here in Iowa?

Rep. Tancredo: Constantly! Yes, it happens all the time. It happens more often in Congress than it does here. Not too long ago, I walked into the Speaker’s lobby and was confronted by someone from the press who asked me if they could do an interview, and I started to do it, and halfway through it realized that they thought they were talking to Steve King. So I told him that I could do a lot of damage to him if I wanted to. Of course, he could do the same to me.

KWN: But there is a strong resemblance, not just in appearance, but in ideology as well isn’t there?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: Yes. It’s really amazing. I joke about the fact that my grandfather came through here, between [the ages of] 9 or 10 years-old on the way to Colorado. So he may have stopped here for longer than we thought! (laughter)

KWN: Are you bothered that perhaps more than any other candidate in either party, you are associated with a single issue?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: I like the idea that at least people know I have one. Give me one other candidate and tell me an issue with which they are connected? They’re just people running for office. They want to be President. That’s nice… They look nice in suits and things like that. They’re smart and competent and accomplished and have done many things, but are they committed to anything? Anything? Do we know any of them that actually have a set of principles or ideas to which they are truly committed? I think people know that about me, and I am happy.

KWN: With perceptions being that the Republican Party is intent on pleasing business demands for inexpensive labor and the Democratic Party in securing a new voting bloc, is there any chance of meaningful Immigration reform?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: It’s going to be tough. It really is. It will take a President. I have been doing this now for 9 years, fighting this battle in Congress, and I can tell you that what you’ve outlined- the Republican demand for cheap labor and the Democratic demand for cheap votes- has been the major stumbling block. But the people are so uptight about it, that they shut down the Senate office switchboard the other day when that Senate bill came up. People are really in to it, and they know the issue and they are on my side. It’s going to take a President to do something about it.

KWN: What is the way to overcome the intransigence of both parties? Is there a concensus on any of the fundamentals on which to build?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: The People… The American People want an answer to this and they do not want amnesty. It takes a President to lead. The only reason we had a bill in the Senate, the only reason, is that we had the President pushing it along with the Democrats. That’s the only reason. There would have been no bill. So we are going to have [to get] a different President who will push another bill and use his power to secure the border and force the Justice Department and ICE to go after employers. There are things the President can do to solve this problem even without the Congress.

KWN: Have you perceived any movement on the immigration issue among your Republican competitors since the campaign began?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: Oh my God it’s incredible! It is absolutely incredible. Last night I went into an event, I was waiting for Tommy Thompson to get done, and when he saw me come in he broke off right in the middle of his discussion about health care and said, “I’ve been against amnesty my whole life!” (laughs)… It was completely out of context. It had nothing to do with anything! He saw me walk in the door and he wanted to assure everyone. And “all his life”, he said, he has been against amnesty (hearty laughter)… It’s great! I love it!

KWN: How do you respond to your critics that accuse you of being anti-legal immigration or anti-immigrant?

Rep. Tancredo: They’re simply untrue. I do want a time out on even legal immigration. Except for people whose immediate family are still outside of the country, and also for refugees. Other than that, I would like a timeout that would reduce legal immigration to about 300,000 per year. And I would like to do that for a few years while we assimilate the people who have come here over the past 40 years of unbridled assimilation. The country has always had that. It’s a cyclical thing. We’ve had periods of high, followed by periods of low immigration-and we’ve taken the periods of low to actually assimilate people. We are not assimilating anymore, and that’s the problem.

KWN: As the Ames Straw Poll approaches, it seems as if the rhetoric from the individual campaign intensifies here in Iowa daily. You have recently been the subject of an attack regarding your Pro-Life record, and you have gone on the offensive against one of your opponents on his immigration record. Is it difficult to not take the criticism of you Pro-Life record personally?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: You know what the most difficult part was? Sam Brownback attacking me on the life issue. I have always thought of him as a man of great integrity. We don’t agree on Immigration [and] we have had many discussions. He believes totally in amnesty [and] he believes in giving social security to illegal immigrant labor. But nonetheless, I have always thought of him as a man of great integrity [with] the religious zeal that he has sort of exemplified. But the reality is when something like that happens, when he attacks me on [being] Pro-life, he knows better. That is the most disconcerting thing. Sam Brownback knows me.

It would be like me saying that Sam Brownback wasn’t Pro-Life because he only came to it 15 years ago. Now, that happens to be true, but it doesn’t matter. I know he’s Pro-Life. So I would never say anything like that. I know it’s not true. He knows when he attacks me on Life, that’s it’s simply not true.

He can attack me for just what you’ve said. That we should reduce legal immigration? Yeah, I’ve said it. Things I do, things I say-attack me for. But don’t make these things up out of whole cloth.

When I attack him on his position on Immigration, it’s a factual statement. We have all of the data. We have all of the votes. We know what we are talking about. When he attacks me on life it’s this concocted thing because somebody who gave me money earlier gave money to Planned Parenthood. It’s ridiculous. My Pro-Life record is 100% and has been for longer than Sam’s.

KWN: How critical is your showing in the Ames Straw Poll in making a decision regarding the future of your campaign?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: It’s very critical. It really is. It’s going to determine whether this thing gets legs or not. I don’t have to win it, but I have to do well. And If I can’t-then yeah, it pretty much comes to an end. If I do, it’s off to the races.

In? this clip, Rep. Tancredo discusses the stakes of the forthcoming presidential election as well as why he chose to run.

I had the pleasure of attending a gathering of Tancredo supporters in Ankeny, IA yesterday. I have some clips of the event to present along with an interview with Rep. Tancredo.

In this first clip, Rep. Tancredo discusses what he will and will not do as President.

On Saturday the Iowa Christian Alliance and Iowans for Tax Relief joined forces to host a Presidential Forum. Attending the event was Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter.

With any debate or forum where candidates are competing for votes we always want to know who won and who lost. I think the clear winner was a candidate who didn’t utter a word in front of the crowd of nearly 800 social and fiscal conservatives because he wasn’t even invited.

Now I’m sure some of you might think I have to be talking about Fred Thompson. I’m sorry to disappoint, but I’m talking about Congressman Ron Paul. The organizers of the forum didn’t extend an invitation to Congressman Paul; apparently he didn’t me their criteria as a “viable” candidate. I don’t really buy that. I think it was just a snub. Invites were sent to Jim Gilmore and Duncan Hunter, both of whom have little or nothing going on in Iowa.

The Paul campaign capitalized on the snub and used it to motivate their activist. The campaign rented the hall just down the hall from the forum and staged its own rally. I’m told by a reliable source that Paul had about 800 or so people attend his rally. If that’s the case, Ron Paul had as many people at his rally as ICA and ITR had at their forum. I’m also pretty sure that Paul’s 800 person event would be the largest single Republican candidate presidential event of this cycle in Iowa. Ron Paul gained more by getting snubbed by ITR and ICA than if he would have been able to attend their forum. I think all of this makes Congressman Paul the clear winner.

While Ron Paul was the winner of the day, Congressman Tom Tancredo delivered the goods inside the forum. Tancredo’s speech was by far the best received, and is the only candidate who actually asks people to join his cause. “Charge into the breach with me, this is our country, fight for it; this is our flag, pick it up; and this is your country, take it back.” Tancredo was impressive, as was Mike Huckabee, but Tancredo was head a shoulders above everyone else that spoke. Here is how I’d rank the forum participants.

1. Tom Tancredo ? Fantastic Speech on conservatism, I’d love to have the transcript.
2. Mike Huckabee ? Great Speech, just lacked the passion of Tancredo’s masterpiece.
3. Duncan Hunter ? Refreshingly honest and sincere.
4. Tommy Thompson ? Not a fan of his style, but his response and knowledge of the stem cell question was the best I’ve heard from any candidate.
5. Mitt Romney ? Great style but lacked any substance. Romney said “I’m a democrat” before correcting himself. It was a bad crowd to have that slip up in front of.
6. Sam Brownback ? His flat tax or bust stance went over like a lead balloon.

On a different note, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani did not attend the forum. It was no surprise that Rudy would skip the event, but one of McCain’s main Iowa consultants organized this event. Rudy was campaigning in a different state, and John McCain was in Arizona.

McCain gave his campaign a vote of confidence last week after being nagged about his poor performing campaign. In sports if the owner or GM gives a vote of confidence the team’s manager is as good as gone; so is McCain’s campaign. McCain’s national and early primary numbers are in the tank, and he’s now known as the amnesty candidate. To make matters worse for McCain he has invested heavily into Iowa by hiring a bunch of Iowa consultants and field staff. McCain’s Iowa payroll is huge, probably more than Romney’s, if McCain can’t rebound there are going to be a lot of unemployed Iowa staffers and consultants that will be up for grabs very soon.

If you have questions about what’s going on in Iowa drop be an email at iowainsider@gmail.com. I’ll post the best questions and give my answers in my next post.

Hat Tip Jeff Fuller.

We have had a full day since the debates, and look at the changes:

Gingrich- Starting to second guess his proposed run.

Tancredo- Scaling back his ‘08 efforts

McCain and Giuliani-realize they just aren’t cut out for it.

This race is changing quickly. By the end of the summer it will be a totally different race.

Tom Trancredo provides some straight talk on the Senate immigration compromise.

Thanks to David All at Tech Republican for the heads-up.

??????? Procedurally, I thought MSNBC did an?fairly good?job of not getting bogged down among ten candidates debating. But I thought their questions were substantively mediocre, and the inability of the moderators to get the candidates to directly answer questions and stay on subject (and candidates should not be allowed to use their answer time for issues they want to bring up or in response to previous questions) wasted time and eroded focus.

Former White House advisor David Gergen hit it on the head, I think, in claiming that there was too much discussion of the past and not nearly enough about the future – and that is the fault of MSNBC, I think, and its debate moderators and contributors in questioning the Republican candidates.

Neither entitlement reform (especially Social Security and Medicare), the size and scope of government, judicial appointments, education, the future of the military, affirmative action, the Middle East peace process, nuclear proliferation, geopolitical strategic threats and allies, economic growth, trade, leadership, gun control (in the wake of the Virginia Tech incident), or the contrasts with Democrat approaches to public policy were the focus of questions, which is just irresponsible, it seems to me, in a 90-minute forum such as this. And many crucial topics – such as health care reform and race relations – were only directed to a few candidates for just a brief period of time.

Technology and public participation are terrific, but not when silly and simplistic questions result in them being utilized in such a forum and squeeze out more important and revealing lines of inquiry.

The Bill Clinton question was a complete and utter waste of everyone’s limited time (and I am wondering when we Republicans can move away from our Bill Clinton fixation), and gotcha questions to Mayor Giuliani (about the difference between Sunni Islam and Shiite Islam, which he nailed – good for him) and Governor Thompson (about the exact numbers of dead and wounded soliders resulting from the Iraq War, which he came close to as to the dead but vastly underestimated as to the wounded) were way out of line. I guess we were lucky that questions weren’t asked about the current prices for a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread.

My personal preference would be that more questions?are addressed by all candidates in order to measure differences.

As to the candidates, I thought it was pretty hard to stand out with so many of them on stage.

But the ones I would consider not inviting to the May 15 debate at the University of South Carolina if I was Fox News, in order to make their debate more manageable and substantive and?penetrating, would be Governor Gilmore, Congressman Hunter, Congressman Paul, Congressman Tancredo, and Governor Thompson. I just thought that these candidates failed to impress as presidential, often focusing on the same narrow issues in answering whatever questions were thrown their way, and their fundraising and poll standing simply do not argue well for their inclusion on May 15.

I thought Governor Huckabee and Senator Brownback helped themselves with confident, smooth, nuanced responses that made them look like they belonged in a presidential debate. For me, Governor Huckabee’s rapid, concise, and powerful response to the question about the jettisoning of Secretary Rumsfeld might have been the most impressive answer of the evening.

I thought the three front-runners stumbled at times and did not really separate themselves from each other or significantly help their causes.?Here is my?quick and specific take on them.

I think abortion obviously continues to hang up Mayor Giualini (and if he was pro-life this GOP nomination process might be a foregone conclusion), and his response to the Roe v. Wade question (while?the other nine?candidates enthusiastically agreed it would be terrific if the decision was overturned, the Mayor grimacingly said it would be okay if the decision was overturned or okay if the decision was upheld on stare decisis grounds) and admission that he is for and was a facilitator of?(as Mayor) public funding of abortion made him look defensive and certainly won’t help him with many mainstream conservatives. I agree with the commentators?who claim the Mayor was more subdued than might be expected for a candidate whose strengths are toughness and leadership. The brevity of time allowed in answering simply did not, I think,?help the Mayor flesh out his strengths?as the leader of the New York City?turnaround. And I think it was interesting that the Mayor was the least critical candidate when it came to the administration of President George W. Bush – a brave, risky, and perhaps not completely supportable position.

I agree with those who claim that the Senator McCain attempt to play the tough guy looked forced. His whole demeanor – squinting and tense and poised to pounce – did not make me comfortable. I do think that his focus on out-of-control government spending is effective, as well as his knowledge and understanding and gravitas when it comes to military and international matters. The Senator just looks a bit too old and a bit too desperate up there, to me.

Governor Romney started off rocky, I thought, though part of it was that some of the early?lines of approach?were barbs aimed directly at him (questioning his change of position on abortion and statement that he would not move heaven and earth to find Osama bin Laden) – which was probably unfair (you cannot have questions that only put one or two candidates on the spot). Like the Mayor, he struggles with abortion, though I thought that by the end of the evening he was making a very plausible and coherent case that he simply has changed from pro-choice to pro-life; the question is whether it is a principled or politically expedient change (which voters will have to judge for themselves). I thought the Governor came across at times like the young and eager beaver, which may not be as presidential as he wants to be, and was not able (under the constraints of the format) to emphasize his record of achievement as a public and private sector manager and leader as well as he needs to.

With a potentially smaller field, the candidates having one encounter under the belts (in order to calm the nerves and focus their approach), and the ability of Fox News to be able to learn from what MSNBC did, I am looking forward to the May 15 debate at the University of South Carolina. Oh, and of course we have the Senator Fred Thompson speech to the Orange County (CA) Lincoln Club tonight and whatever response Speaker Newt Gingrich has to all of this, as well.

In addition to the comments of Gergen, the one piece of post-debate analysis I found somewhat compelling was from Dean Barnett, who is usually just way too long-winded for my taste,?over at the Hugh Hewitt web site, as to what the expectations will be for Fred Thompson (although I strongly disagree with Barnett’s?conclusion that Thompson should wait to get in – because of the importance of fundraising in this endeavor, he cannot possibly afford to do that):

“Fred’s got an issue. When he enters, the expectations for him to run a perfect campaign will be impossibly high. At the first debate he participates in, if he does anything less than get all the other candidates to confess that Fred Thompson is the better man, the pundits will label his performance a disappointment.

In short, official candidate Thompson will get no honeymoon. All the other candidates have made a bunch of errors between the start of things and now. They’re learning, at least in theory. Fred’s margin of error will be extremely small.

I say that argues for him delaying his entry until at least Labor Day, maybe longer. Then he’ll have to go only a few months without making a mistake. The flip side of the coin is that he enters now and has setbacks and surges like all the other candidates and hopefully (from his perspective) winds up on top.

But being just another guy isn’t much fun. Just ask Rudy.”

??????? Great report from David Yepsen, the dean of Iowa political reporters, in today’s editions of the Des Moines Register, on yesterday’s annual Iowa Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner. Evidently back-of-the-pack Republican presidential candidates such as Senator Sam Brownback, Governor Jim Gilmore, Governor Mike Huckabee, Congressman Tom Tancredo, and Governor Tommy Thompson?really went after 2008 GOP front-runners Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney (or “Rudy McRomney” to use the phrase of Governor Gilmore) – claiming they are not conservative, late to the conservative movement, and more celebrity than conservative.

I applaud these back-of-the-pack candidates for holding the feet of the front-runners to the fire. I think their points are well taken – Giuliani, McCain, and Romney have not been consistent and constant conservatives. And I look forward to seeing these candidates engage directly on May 3 when the Ronald Reagan Presidential? Library hosts the first 2008 Republican presidential debate from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on MSNBC, followed shortly thereafter by their debate at the University of South Carolina on May 15 from 9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on the Fox News Channel.

This campaign?is?going to start getting very interesting.

The issue of adult and embryonic stem-cell research is an issue that is very important to many pro-lifers like myself. It surely is a controversial issue, and the passage of federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research led to President Bush’s first veto of his presidency. Once again, the Senate is debating the issue, under two bills. The first bill, S 5, named the “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007,” is much like the bill Pres. Bush vetoed, except that it takes some language from a previous Santorum bill in order to try and make it veto proof. The second bill, S. 30, the HOPE Act, would encourage federal funding of ethical research without harming human embryos.

The issue of federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research has also become a “litmus test” for pro-lifers to judge a politican’s commitment towards the pro-life movement. For instance, former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was slammed by the pro-life community for supporting it, while Democrat Sen. Bob Casey Jr. was praised yesterday by the Family Research Council for once again committing his support against it.

This issue is very important to pro-lifers in regards to 2008. Legislation that would federally fund embryonic stem-cell research passed under a Republican majority in both houses, and will likely pass again under a Democratic majority. Luckily, President Bush had the courage to use his first veto against the legislation, and will likely veto it again. However, will we be so lucky with our next president?

So far, the candidates opposed to federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research are: Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, Romney, and Tancredo.

Supporting federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research are: McCain and Giuliani.

I am not sure where Fred Thompson or Jim Gilmore stand on this issue.

Brownback has been a leading supporter of adult stem-cell research and a leading opponent of embryonic stem-cell research. Here is what he posted today at the Hill’s Congressional blog titled: “Where do we draw the line on stem cells?”

I look forward to highlighting the fact that adult stem cell research, which does not destroy young human lives, has yielded real treatments for patients in need. I welcome the opportunity for a full and open debate which raises a basic question: should we use taxpayer dollars to fund research that many people, including myself, consider unethical because it destroys young human lives? Or should we focus federal research funding on ethical alternatives that carry more clinical promise?

I agree with Brownback on this issue. The main thing I wonder is if the proponents of embryonic stem-cell research claim that it is so promising, then why is it not privately funded? Why aren’t research companies spending their own dollars on this research? Wouldn’t you love to be the first company to come up with the cure to all the diseases proponets claim this research would benefit?

Brownback also wrote an op-ed which USA Today ran yesterday:

Reject embryo bill
Washington should limit research funding to adult stem cells only.

By Sam Brownback

Last year I met a courageous young woman, Jacki Rabon of Illinois, who was paralyzed in a car accident at age 16. Today, thanks to an ethical adult stem cell treatment that she received in Portugal, Jacki is regaining feeling in her legs and can walk with the aid of braces and a walker.

This week, the Senate will debate a bill that would provide taxpayer funding for a different type of stem cell research from the type that is helping Jacki and scores of other patients. The Senate will vote on whether to fund embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos. We all started as an embryo, and biologically, the human embryo is no less human than you or I.

Two issues are at stake:

First, should we treat the young human as a person or as a piece of property? Will the federal government maintain high ethical standards in research, or will we sanction the destruction of young human lives to further speculative research that might or might not eventually help patients?

Second, should we fund the research that holds the most promise to bring treatments to patients soonest, or should we fund speculative and unethical research, the benefits of which are unclear and may never come?

For the sake of the patients, we should fund adult stem cell research to the exclusion of unethical embryonic stem cell research. Jacki should not have to travel to Portugal, at great personal expense, for a treatment with her own adult stem cells. And she is not the only patient who has had no choice but to travel around the world for an adult stem cell treatment.

We know of 72 peer-reviewed adult stem cell treatments and applications for a wide range of diseases and injuries. Yet embryonic stem cell research has not yielded any treatments or applications to date.

Patients should have the peace of mind that their treatment did not come at the expense of another’s destruction, and they should not have to travel around the world to seek help. I urge my Senate colleagues to reject the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and taxpayer funding for human embryonic stem cell research.

Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas and a candidate for president.

My main reasons for posting this is to inform readers on where the 2008 candidates stand on this issue, and also to remind readers why pro-lifers love Brownback so much — not only does he vote our way, but he is also our leader on issues like this. In recent years, most pro-life legislation has been very much supported by the general public — such as banning partial-birth abortions and parental notification laws. Embryonic stem-cell research, however, is much more controversial mostly because people don’t understand the issue, and is generally supported by the general public. This is when the pro-life movement finds out who its real leaders are — like Sam Brownback — and who the sell-outs are — like former majority leader Bill Frist.

I have always believed tax simplification should be a national priority. Economists will tell you that our current federal tax code is inefficient, wasteful, and impedes economic growth. But with congressional Republicans making nice with K Street lobbyists as a priority under the direction of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in order to raise campaign funds and provide lucrative future careers for ex-congressional members and their staffs, the incentive to scrap a federal tax code where statutory complexity creates the need for lobbyists was not in the interests of enough Republican leaders in Congress to warrant serious legislative consideration.

The recent endorsement of Mayor Rudy Giuliani for president by Steve Forbes, and the Mayor’s subsequent endorsement of tax simplification if not the flat tax itself that Mr. Forbes has fought so valiantly for in the court of public opinion, should remind us of the importance of this issue. And perhaps not coincidentally, it is also our great and good fortune as students and fans of public policy that the Hoover Institution has announced that the seminal work by economics professors Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka that originally erected the intellectual pillars for tax simplification, “The Flat Tax,” is about to be republished in a revised edition next week.

In studying this issue, I have concluded that a consumption (sales) tax is not politically feasible due to the sticker shock it would create among American consumers, though having a ready-made, retail store collection mechanism for our foundational tax system is attractive. Similary, a value added tax, assessed at the various stages of production, is reportedly too easy to raise by legislators and has the ultimate effect of a consumption tax because it is passed on in the form of higher prices until it reaches the ultimate purchaser of products. So the answer to the question of how to create tax simplification may well be the flat tax, though I am open to debating any and all forms of federal income tax simplification.

The question now becomes which Republican presidential candidates in 2008 will make federal income tax simplification a priority? Here is what I have found. Let’s see how these positions are debated and adjusted as the primary campaign proceeds.

Mayor Giuliani now supports tax simplification if not a flat tax, though in all fairness the Mayor called the Forbes push for a flat tax in 1996 a “mistake” and “disaster.” Speaker Gingrich seems to support tax reform that is more growth oriented, though his call for targeted tax deductions does not sound like tax simplification. Senator McCain supports a flat tax. At least in 1996, Governor Romney was against a flat tax, purchasing a series of newspaper ads attacking the idea by then presidential candidate Forbes, though currently the Governor has come out for tax simplification. Senator Brownback supports a flat tax. I cannot discern where former Senator Fred Thompson is currently on tax simplification, though previously he was a member of the Flat Tax Caucus as a Senator and spoke favorably of tax simplification during his tenure on Capitol Hill. Governor Huckabee supports a flat tax. Congressman Hunter supports tax simplification in general, though not necessarily a specific flat or consumption tax; the same goes for Governor Gilmore. Governor Thompson’s position on tax simplification is unclear, though he has a record of cutting taxes in Wisconsin. Congressman Paul favors tax cuts, though his position on tax simplification is unclear. Congressman Tancredo supports a flat tax.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, which is already scheduled to host a 10-candidate (Brownback, Gilmore, Giuliani, Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, Paul, Romney, Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson are confirmed) or more debate among Republican White House contenders on May 3, 2007, has decided to hold a second GOP presidential debate just prior to the Titanic Tuesday, February 5, 2008, primary election in so many states. This second debate will be held on Wednesday, January 30, 2008, and will be restricted to the top two or three Republican presidential hopefuls at that time, with criteria for selection of the participants and the identity of the media sponsor being undecided as of now.

As a strong fiscal conservative, I’ve long awaited a comprehensive analysis that sizes up the ‘08 field on both taxes AND spending. Thanks to the National Taxpayers Union, we now have some idea of where the candidates on both sides of the aisle stand on economic growth and size-and-scope of government issues. NTU has released a nifty scorecard that ranks all of the presidential contenders with legislative records on these issues, meaning that, unfortunately, we don’t get to see where candidates with only executive experience fit into the overall snapshot. Still, the results are enlightening, and in some cases, a bit surprising.

Each year, NTU assigns a grade to each Member of Congress w/r/t his or her votes on legislation related to taxes, debt, regulation, and spending. The NTU looks both at the percentage of the time the legislator voted for the taxpayer, and at the importance of each of those votes, weighing each vote accordingly. This prevents, for example, a congresscritter voting in favor of several small tax credits but against a huge tax cut from earning a higher score than a legislator who did the opposite, thus presenting a more accurate picture of where the candidates stand on fiscal issues than would a raw vote count. According to NTU, here are the ‘08 candidates’ most recent grades:

NTU Congressional Rating (most recent legislative year)

John McCain: A (88%)
Ron Paul: A (84%)
Sam Brownback: A (84%)
Newt Gingrich: A (79%)
Tom Tancredo: A (76%)
Fred Thompson: A (73%)
Chuck Hagel: B+ (82%)
Duncan Hunter: B (62%)
Bill Richardson: F (33%)
John Edwards: F (22%)
Dennis Kucinich: F (22%)
Hillary Clinton: F (17%)
Barack Obama: F (16%)
Joe Biden: F (11%)
Chris Dodd: F (10%)

Two things. First, this explains why Duncan Hunter isn’t gaining any traction; his record on fiscal issues is that of something other than a conservative. Secondly, Bill Richardson appears to be the most fiscally conservative Democrat in the field, though that’s not saying much. In order to avoid making inferences based on what may be an anomalous year on the part of some candidates, let’s now take a look at the percentage of legislative years during which each candidate received an “A” grade from the NTU:

Percent of “A” Grades

Ron Paul: 100%
Tom Tancredo: 100%
Fred Thompson: 88%
John McCain: 67%
Newt Gingrich: 57%
Sam Brownback: 50%
Chuck Hagel: 30%
Duncan Hunter: 6%
All Democrats: 0%

McCain is likely hurt by his opposition to the Bush tax cuts earlier in the decade. Thompson, interestingly, received an A from the NTU almost every year he was in the Senate, bested only by Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. And, finally, NTU has determined just how much of your money each of these candidates would like to spend. By parsing the legislative agenda of each of the ‘08 candidates, and by subtracting the amount each candidate’s agenda would cut government from the amount each agenda would increase the cost of government, NTU has revealed just which of our ‘08 candidates truly are committed to small government. The results are a bit surprising:

Net cost of legislative agenda for most recent legislative year

Bill Richardson: -$1.6 billion
Fred Thompson: $3.1 billion
Newt Gingrich: $4.5 billion
Barack Obama: $11.7 billion
Tom Tancredo: $13.7 billion
Duncan Hunter: $15.8 billion
Sam Brownback: $19 billion
Ron Paul: $34 billion
John McCain: $36.9 billion
Chuck Hagel: $86.7 billion
Joe Biden: $90 billion
John Edwards: $103.5 billion
Chris Dodd: $224 billion
Hillary Clinton: $378.2 billion
Dennis Kucinich: $1.87 trillion

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s legislative agenda would actually have led to net cuts in government. If Bill Richardson were the prototypical Democrat, I would likely have to rethink my party affiliation. And if anyone is the heir to Bill Clinton in the Democratic field, it’s Barack Obama, with his tax-and-don’t-spend policies, which are very similar to the former president’s agenda, and which is far more Clintonian than Ms. Rodham’s tax-and-spend liberalism. In fact, Hillary’s attempts to grow government dwarf those of every Republican and most Democrats in the field, proving Dick Morris right when he postulated that Hillary would be our first European-style socialist president.

On the Republican side, Fred Thompson’s record on spending puts the rest of the field to shame, and is even more conservative than that of Newt Gingrich. Perhaps Thompson’s supposed lack of accomplishments in the Senate are the result of a legislator who erred on the side of ensuring that government didn’t grow, didn’t spend more, didn’t meddle more in people’s lives, and generally left Americans alone. In an age of two big-governnment parties, it isn’t surprising that such a candidate is garnering interest.