ripon forum october- november 2006

The issues that matter this election, and why the choice

is so important this year.

Plus: Tom Feeney and Sarah Chamberlain Resnick debate the key to victory for Republicans this fall.

A Time for Choosing

www.riponsociety.org $4.95 U.S./$5.95 Canada

October/November 2006Volume 40, No. 5

Reagan in Youngstown

Cover Story

A Time for Choosing – The Forum askedprominent Republicans to share their thoughtson the issues that matter this election, and why the choice is so important this year.

4 Keeping our Nation Secure By Newt Gingrich The path to victory begins with making the right choice.

6 Promoting Energy Independence By Senator Pete Domenici We must continue our efforts to increase production and develop alternative fuels.

8 Strengthening Health Care By Tommy Thompson Reforming Medicaid must be a priority next year.

10 Improving Education By Congressman Mike Castle A track record of success and a desire to do more.

12 Protecting the Environment By Christine Todd Whitman We must stay true to the heritage of Theodore Roosevelt.

14 Keeping Taxes Low By Jennifer Dunn Let’s not turn back the clock on progress that’s been made.

16 Limiting Spending By John Kasich We’ve done it before; we can – and must – do it again.

Interview

18 Q & A With Landon Parvin The legendary GOP speechwriter talks about the importance of words in politics and why Republicans are facing such a challenge.

Debate

20 The Key to Victory this Fall We must adhere to the principles on which our base was built. By Congressman Tom Feeney

21 The Key to Victory this Fall We can’t forget about Centrists and Independents. By Sarah Chamberlain Resnick

Perspective

24 Reagan in Youngstown By William C. Binning

Sections

3 A Note from the Chairman Emeritus

28 Ripon Profile Congressman Eric Cantor

One Year Subscription:

$35.00 individuals

$10.00 students

The Ripon Forum (ISSN 0035-5526) is published bi-monthly by The Ripon Society.

The Ripon Society is located at 1300 L Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005.

Postmaster, send address changes to: The Ripon Forum, 1300 L Street, NW, Suite

900, Washington, DC 20005.

Comments, opinion editorials and letters should be addressed to: The Ripon Forum, 1300 L Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington,

DC 20005 or may be transmitted electronically to: [email protected].

In publishing this magazine, the Ripon Society seeks to provide a forum for fresh ideas,

well-researched proposals, and for a spirit of criticism, innovation, and independent

thinking within the Republican Party.

Publisher The Ripon Society

President Richard S. Kessler

Chief Administrative Officer George McNeill

Editorial Board William Frenzel William Meub

Editor Louis M. Zickar

Associate Editor Molly J. Milliken

© Copyright 2006 By The Ripon Society All Rights Reserved

“Ideas that matter,since 1965.“

Volume 40, No. 5, October/November 2006

RIPON FORUM October/November 20061

The American Health Care Association (AHCA) is a non-profit federation of affiliated state health organizations, together representing more than 10,000 non-profit and for-profit assisted living, nursing facility, developmentally-disabled, and subacute care providers that care for more than 1.5 million elderly and disabled individuals nationally. www.ahca.org

2.8 million baby boomers are turning 60 this year. Now

more than ever, it’s important to protect the future of

quality long term care for ourselves and our loved ones.

The American Health Care Association is committed

to serving as a force for change within the long term

care field, providing information, education, and

administrative tools that enhance quality at every level.

Quality Care. Quality Living.Quality First.

AHCA-Rippon_F-full pg.indd 1 9/28/06 11:16:26 AM

RIPON FORUM October/November 2006 �

A Note from the Chairman Emeritus

In October 1964, Ronald Reagan delivered a televised speech to the nation called, “A Time for Choosing.”

In it, Reagan stated his belief that “the issues confronting us cross party lines.” He discussed what those issues were, and then explained why the Republican Party, led by presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, would do a better job solving them.

Of course, Goldwater tanked that year, and Republicans in Congress didn’t fare much better. But the speech launched Reagan’s political career. It also launched a revolution of new ideas that helped Reagan win the Presidency in 1980 and helped Republicans win control of Congress in 1994.

As we approach the 2006 mid-term elections, some are saying that the Republican Party is out of ideas. And we know that, at times, the party in power is tempted to eschew good ideas for the sake of remaining in power.

One of the goals of this issue is to provide Republicans with an opportunity to show that is not the case. On a range of topics from national security to taxes, we have asked prominent party leaders to discuss some of the key issues that matter this election. Our line-up reads like a who’s who of the GOP. We hope you enjoy it.

We also hope you enjoy our other features in this issue, including a debate over one of the keys to victory for Republicans this fall, and a look back at how Ronald Reagan appealed to blue collar voters. We also discuss party politics with a prominent GOP speechwriter.

Elections are indeed a time for choosing. This one is no different. We encourage all of our readers to study up on the issues and learn about the candidates. And most of all, we encourage you to vote.

Bill FrenzelChairman EmeritusRipon Society

THE RIPON SOCIETY HONORARY CONGRESSIONAL ADVISORY BOARDSenator Chuck Hagel (NE) Senate ChairmanRepresentative Nancy L. Johnson (CT) House ChairwomanSenator Richard Burr (NC) Senator Lincoln D. Chafee (RI) Senator Norm Coleman (MN)Senator Susan M. Collins (ME)Senator Judd Gregg (NH)Senator Orrin G. Hatch (UT)Senator Pat Roberts (KS)Senator Gordon Smith (OR)Senator Olympia J. Snowe (ME)Senator Arlen Specter (PA)Senator Ted Stevens (AK)Representative Judy Biggert (IL) Representative Roy Blunt (MO)Representative Sherwood Boehlert (NY)Representative Henry Bonilla (TX)Representative Ken Calvert (CA)Representative Dave Camp (MI)Representative Eric I. Cantor (VA)Representative Michael Castle (DE)Representative Howard Coble (NC)Representative Ander Crenshaw (FL)Representative Thomas M. Davis III (VA)Representative Vernon Ehlers (MI)Representative Jo Ann H. Emerson (MO)Representative Philip S. English (PA)Representative Mike Ferguson (NJ)Representative Vito Fossella (NY)Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ)Representative Paul E. Gillmor (OH) Representative Kay Granger (TX)Representative Melissa A. Hart (PA)Representative Robin Hayes (NC)Representative David Hobson (OH) Representative Sue W. Kelly (NY)Representative Jim Kolbe (AZ)Representative Ray H. LaHood (IL)Representative Steven LaTourette (OH) Representative Jim Leach (IA)Representative Jerry Lewis (CA) Representative Jim McCrery (LA) Representative Michael G. Oxley (OH)Representative Thomas E. Petri (WI) Representative Deborah Pryce (OH) Representative Adam Putnam (FL)Representative Jim Ramstad (MN) Representative Ralph Regula (OH) Representative Joe Schwarz (MI)Representative E. Clay Shaw Jr. (FL) Representative Christopher Shays (CT)Representative John E. Sweeney (NY)Representative William M. Thomas (CA) Representative Fred Upton (MI) Representative James T. Walsh (NY) Represenative Edward Whitfield (KY)

The Ripon Society is a research and policy organization located in Washington, D.C. There are National Associate members throughout the United States.


Keeping our Nation SecureThe path to victory begins with making the right choice.

NEWT GINGRICH

This November, American voters will vote in the third federal elections since the 9/11 attacks. Once

again, as in 2002 and 2004, we are having an important national dialogue as to how we will win the war against our enemies and protect Americans from an increasingly organized anti-American coalition of terrorists and dictators.

In this dialogue, voters should first consider five big facts.

First, the threat to our survival is mortal, direct and immediate. In the age of nuclear and biological weapons, even a few determined hateful people can do more damage than Adolph Hitler did in the Second World War. The loss of two or three American cities to nuclear weapons is a real threat. The loss from a biological attack would be even more devastating.

Second, the threat is global in nature and involves increasing cooperation among an emerging anti-American coalition. America is unavoidably engaged in an emerging third world war, and any look at the active players and the centers of violence indicates just how worldwide it is. North Korea with its missile and nuclear weapons program are potential assets for Iran, which is allied with Syria and subsequently Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas, which operates not only in the Middle East but also in South America. Iran also has ties with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Simply marking on a map every place where there are acts of terrorism or dictatorships actively engaged in strengthening themselves for a possible future confrontation with the United States unmistakably reveals just how worldwide this threat is.

Third, our enemies are increasingly confident. Their statements of their intention to defeat us are direct and clear. Iranian Dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said, “To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible.”

The Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said: “The world of Islam has been mobilized against America for the past 25 years. The peoples call, ‘death to America.’ Who used to say ‘death to America?’ Who, besides the Islamic Republic and the Iranian people, used to say this? Today, everyone says this.”

In our own hemisphere, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has called on Iran to “save the human race, let’s finish off the U.S. empire.”

Fourth, despite these unambiguous statements from our enemies, there is still great confusion among our elites and in the news media. Changing this by getting agreement on the scale of the threat is vital to the successful prosecution of the war. The key in this

conflict – in military terms, the center of gravity – is the American people and, secondarily, all the free people of the world.

Fifth, we have to confront the fact that while much has been accomplished in the last five years, much more must be done if we are to win. Time is not on our side. We must confront the reality that we are neither where we want to be nor where we need to be.

We have not captured Bin Laden. We have not defeated the Taliban in its sanctuaries in Northwest Pakistan. We have not stopped the recruitment of young fanatics into terrorism. We have not stopped either the Iranian or the North Korean nuclear programs. We do not have a stable, democratic Pakistan capable of securing its own nuclear weapons. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is stable and secure. The United Nations is unreformed, and we have failed to convince the people of America and of our fellow democracies of the correctness and necessity of what we are doing. We have vastly more to do than we have even begun to imagine.

The evidence from even before 9/11 through today is that our enemies are vivid, direct, and unequivocal in their desire to defeat us – even if they have to die to do so. If they were to acquire a biological or nuclear

America is unavoidably engaged in an emerging

third world war, and any look at the active

players and the centers of violence indicates just

how worldwide it is.

Cover Story

RIPON FORUM October/November 2006 5

weapon, they would not hesitate to use it in order to kill us in substantial numbers and shatter our freedom. We cannot afford to be confused. Our cities and our own lives are at risk.

As the November election draws near, there are two factions of American politics that predominate. The appeasement wing declares the war too hard and the world too dangerous. These defeatists try to find some explainable way to avoid reality while advocating a return to “normalcy” at home and promoting a policy of weakness and withdrawal abroad.

A second faction argues our national security system is doing the best it can and that we have to “stay the course” – no matter how unproductive.

With American survival at stake, Americans must choose a path to victory that rejects as unthinkable the first group’s strategy of negotiated surrender and rejects as insufficient the second group’s unwillingness to do whatever it takes to win. The path to victory requires that we are willing to reorganize everything as needed in our national security system. We are in a real war in a lot of places, and all of our national institutions need to be in that war. This path will require more entrepreneurship and more speed as well as more resources and more accountability.

A new war budget should be developed from war time requirements rather than peacetime constraints. Intelligence and the land forces (Army and Marines) are all underfunded. Those who think we currently have a wartime budget simply have no notion of the scale of American war efforts historically. We have a robust peacetime budget while trying to fight three wars and contain four dictatorships. That is a risky formula and makes victory much more difficult.

But to do what is required, pro-victory leaders must first understand Margaret Thatcher’s axiom that “first you win the argument, and then you win the vote.” In the end, it is only with the support of the American people that political leaders can do what it takes in order to protect us from these mortal threats.

America knows how to win; we have been in such a situation before. In November of 1980, voters had had enough of the domestic and foreign policy failures

of the Carter administration. They had just experienced the first year of what Mark Bowden in Guests of the Ayatollah called, “the first battle in America’s war with militant Islam” – the seizure of the American embassy in Iran in November 1979.

In choosing to replace President Carter with former movie actor and former California Governor Ronald Reagan, the American people embraced a clear vision of victory. Famously asked by a reporter during the campaign about his vision of the Cold War, Reagan answered with these four words: “We win - they lose.”

Reagan’s personification of strength and courage, coupled with his ability to connect with the American people through his warmth and his wit, stood in stark contrast to Carter’s humorless acceptance of weakness abroad and lowering economic standards at home. The

voters heard Reagan loud and clear, and so too did our enemies. On the day of Reagan’s inauguration in January of 1981, the 444-day ordeal of the 52 American hostages finally ended.

President Reagan, along with his allies, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, went on to implement a systematic plan using economic and political might to defeat the Soviet Union without going to war. A few short years after Reagan left office, the Berlin Wall collapsed and the Soviet Union was no more.

Civilizations rise and fall because of the decisions of their political leaders. In the world’s democratic societies, these leaders are chosen by

their voters, and it is ultimately their choice that matters. In the 2006 midterm election, the stakes for this choice couldn’t be higher.

We are in an emerging third world war. We must choose leaders who will insist upon victory. We owe it to our children and grandchildren who deserve an even safer, freer and more prosperous American future. RF

Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America” (Regnery, 2005).

Civilizations rise and fall because of the decisions of their political leaders. In the world’s democratic societies, these

leaders are chosen by their voters, and it is ultimately their choice that matters.


Promoting Energy IndependenceWe must continue our efforts to increase domestic production and develop alternative sources of fuel.

PETE V. DOMENICI

Republicans and Democrats have strong philosophical differences about energy. Conservation is the

lynchpin of every Democratic energy plan I have seen. By contrast, Republicans match conservation with a push to increase energy production and employ innovation and technology to create new energies.

I think these philosophical differences are crucial to America’s energy future. In particular, these differences could have a significant impact on the price consumers pay for energy and the effect these energy prices have on inflation and the economy.

Last year, under Republican leadership, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I took the lead in writing this bill and getting it through the Senate. I worked to craft a bill that increased energy production where possible, particularly the production of clean energies like wind, solar and nuclear energy.

My colleagues and I wrote an energy bill that took our national energy conservation efforts to a new level. We raised the minimum standards for energy-efficient products and provided new incentives to both businesses and consumers, respectively, to manufacture and buy products that require less energy.

Finally, we wrote a bill that expanded America’s investment in the research and development of new, clean energies we hope can one day replace our reliance on foreign oil. We invested in research for advanced nuclear power, for coal-to-liquids technology that could one day power jet airliners with synthetic fuel from American coal, for cars powered by hydrogen and for electricity from a coal gas that doesn’t pollute the air.

This year, Senate Republicans have further responded to consumer concern over high oil and gas prices by passing legislation in the Senate to expand our own production of oil and gas.

Why? Because supply is a fundamental principle of

free market economics. If you want to lower the price of a commodity in high demand, simply increase its supply.

Right now, oil prices are the lowest they’ve been in six months. Gasoline prices have dropped as much as 90 cents a gallon in some areas since mid-summer. Natural

gas prices have dropped below $5 per Btu (British thermal unit), down from a high of $16 per Btu a year and a half ago.

These days, energy is a global commodity. If global oil supplies tighten, we see the effect immediately in the price of oil and

a few days later in the price of gasoline. If we want to keep our own energy prices from over-reacting every time something happens overseas, we must increase our own production here at home.

I couldn’t do as much as I wanted to in the energy bill to increase our supply of oil and gas. So this year, I passed a bill through the Senate that expands oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico. My bill, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, would limit exploration to 100 miles off the coast of Florida and would bring 1.2 billion barrels of oil to market along with 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That’s enough gas to heat and cool nearly 6 million homes for 15 years.

Interestingly, shortly after the Senate passed my bill, Chevron announced that it had tapped into a vast oil reserve in the Gulf of Mexico that may be bigger than anything we have found in Alaska. This discovery affirms my conviction that America can do much more than it has been doing to meet its own energy needs. I am currently working to get the Senate bill through the House.

Senator Domenici and President Bush talk with Thomas Hunter of Sandia National Laboratory during a tour of the Lab’s National Solar Thermal Test Facility in August 2005.

If we want to keep our own energy prices from over-reacting

every time something happens overseas, we must increase our own production here at home.


Republicans understand that expanded production – environmentally sound production – is critical to easing prices, keeping inflation in check and powering our economy while we refine tomorrow’s energies.

We are unwavering in our commitment to the ingenuity and innovation that will develop those new energies. For example, the energy bill made a tremendous investment in ethanol and other biofuels. The ethanol provision of the energy bill alone will displace more than two billion barrels of foreign oil over the next six years. President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative expands our investment into the refining of biofuels that may one day replace gasoline.

Nuclear energy illustrates the Republican commitment to innovation and technology. I am a passionate advocate of nuclear power and have been for almost 10 years. First, it’s right for the environment. It is clean energy that holds tremendous promise for addressing climate change. Second, nuclear energy is one of our most affordable and reliable energies. Right now, electricity from nuclear power is the second cheapest source of electricity in America. Only hydropower is cheaper.

But for �0 years, America has been slow to recognize the value of nuclear power. While we have stalled, other developed and developing nations have forged ahead with advanced nuclear reactors that are smaller, safer and produce more energy than anything we have here in America. By 2020, China plans to build as many as �2 nuclear reactors. That is in addition to the 10 already in use or under construction.

President Bush also recognizes the tremendous promise nuclear power holds for this nation. In 2000, he included the expansion of nuclear power in his national energy plan. Today, because of the combined efforts of a Republican Administration and a Republican Congress, utilities have announced plans to build as many as �0

nuclear reactors in the lower 48 states during the next 20 years. This means enough clean and affordable electricity to power more than 17 million households without any airborne emissions.

What Republicans are doing for nuclear power, we are also doing for hydrogen technology, clean coal technology and coal-to-liquids technology. Republicans like competitive, bold and innovative ideas. It is at the heart of our free enterprise philosophy and our deep pride in American ingenuity.

We are at a critical point in our energy future. We are just beginning to reap the benefits from the national energy policy President Bush announced six years ago and Congress codified last year. We are midway through the work of building on those successes. President Bush earlier this year announced his Advanced Energy Initiative, which builds on our commitment to renewable fuels and technology. I am working with my Senate colleagues and House Republicans to do what we can to further stabilize the price of oil, natural gas and gasoline in the near term while our long term investments in conservation, technology and renewable energies pay off. Now is not the time to waiver or change our course.

The Republican record on energy is a strong one and one that will look even stronger in the future as the effects of what we are doing now are felt. It is essential that Republicans remain in the majority if we want to keep working to strengthen America’s energy security. RF

Pete V. Domenici represents New Mexico in the United States Senate. He serves as Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

...for 30 years, America has been slow to recognize the value of nuclear power.

While we have stalled, other developed and developing nations have forged ahead with advanced nuclear reactors that are smaller,

safer and produce more energy than anything we have here in America.

Nuclear power station in Cumbria, England.


Strengthening Health CareReforming Medicaid must be a priority next year.

TOMMY G. THOMPSON

There is a fundamental health care question that every candidate for office, whether at the state or

federal level, should answer this fall: How are we going to address growing Medicaid challenges that threaten state budgets and increasingly leaves gaps in care for vulnerable families?

Medicaid, the health care program that treats 5� million Americans, is in need of fundamental and comprehensive reform to ensure that it meets the very different needs of very different populations it serves, including poor and uninsured children, people with disabilities and the elderly.

Medicaid has not been significantly updated since its creation in the mid-1960s. Like many relics of that era, Medicaid has become increasingly inefficient, prone to fraud and abuse, and out of step with advancements in modern health care.

Past attempts at reform have been mostly ineffective, largely due to lack of political will and entrenched interest groups. There simply hasn’t been the commitment to trying new and better ways of administering the program as a whole. Therefore, too many efforts have forced cash-strapped states to limit services without improving care.

The financial challenge is real. Simply saying “spend more money” isn’t going to get it done. Medicaid will cost taxpayers nearly $5 trillion over the next 10 years. That is why we have a vested interest in making sure this program is as strong as possible. Already, Medicaid exceeds more than 20 percent of state appropriations in half of the states, and those numbers will only grow in the coming decade – forcing governors and state legislatures to raise taxes, reduce benefits or make painful choices about limiting other state services to pay for Medicaid.

This summer, I convened summits nationwide with Medicaid experts, health advocates and government leaders to develop a roadmap for the future of the Medicaid program. Those efforts have led to a report entitled, Medicaid Makeover: Four Challenges and Potential Solutions on the Road to Reform. The report lays out the four central problems plaguing Medicaid and what policymakers must do to confront these challenges:

First, Medicaid does not adequately meet the health care needs of the diverse populations served by the program. We must realign responsibility for Medicaid so that the federal government assumes a larger role in planning, delivering and paying for services for the elderly while allowing the states to take on greater responsibility for those under 65.

Second, Payment structures and technologies are outdated. States must be encouraged to recognize and reward high-quality care and improved outcomes and to deploy health information technologies. How badly is advanced health IT needed in health care? In August, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM) issued a report that found that at least 1.5 million Americans are sickened, injured or killed each year by medication errors. In other words, the wrong patients are getting the wrong drugs in the wrong dosages at the wrong time. The IOM estimates the extra expense for treating illnesses caused by medication errors to be at least $�.5 billion. Medicaid programs can be leaders in this field.

Third, Medicaid must do more to address the problem of the uninsured. States must be encouraged to expand Medicaid coverage to lessen the strain on our health care safety net.

Fourth, Medicaid does not efficiently encourage individuals to play an active role. We must identify and overcome barriers so individuals can take control of their own health.

To expand on this last point, Medicaid Makeover calls for shifting emphasis from treating sickness to managing wellness. Individuals should be empowered to take charge of their own health – an absolutely necessary component of any health reforms

In Medicaid and through the health care system, the first and best way to reduce health care costs – and


In Medicaid and through the health care system, the first and best way to reduce health care costs – and improve

people’s health – is to keep them from getting sick in the first place.

improve people’s health – is to keep them from getting sick in the first place. As a matter of economic, health and personal policy, we must do all that we can to promote the cause of prevention – living healthier lifestyles by eating right, exercising more and stopping smoking.

What does this mean for the health care system? Just look at the facts:

• Obesity costs the American economy $117 billion a year.

• About 75 percent of our health care dollars are spent treating chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. And $75 billion of that treats obesity alone.

• These chronic illnesses – many of which can be prevented by healthy lifestyles – cause seven out of every 10 deaths.

These preventive health issues – as well as the other three noted earlier – are severely impacting Medicaid. Addressing these fundamental challenges is key to redesigning Medicaid. We also must stop looking at the old model that worked in 1965 but is now clearly and

painfully outmoded and instead figure what works best in 2006 and beyond. We must identify the best way to bring quality health care to those in need and not hide behind an antiquated system. Innovation needs to be encouraged and more importantly rewarded.

When I was governor of Wisconsin and overhauled an outmoded welfare system, many told me it couldn’t be done. I didn’t listen to them. Instead, I listened to

welfare mothers and found out how government could help them get back to work. With the help of many others, we achieved our goal.

I am confident that we can succeed again with making over Medicaid – if Governors, Members of Congress and state lawmakers make it a priority this election season and throughout their terms in office. RF

Tommy G. Thompson served as Secretary of Health and Human Services from 2001-2005. Previously, he served as Governor of Wisconsin from 1987-2001. He is currently a partner at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld LLC.


Improving Education A track record of success and a desire to do more.

MICHAEL N. CASTLE

As voters prepare for the 2006 election, there are many solutions to a variety of concerns being presented

by candidates – gas prices, the war in Iraq, national security, and immigration to name only a few. While all significant, we must also remember the importance of education, not only as a primary issue for voters, but also as something worth being extremely proud of.

Education spans our whole lives, and, in many respects, our state and local governments are best suited to determine the details of how our students are educated. That being said, the federal government plays a significant role in setting the bar and providing the framework.

We first must look to our recent successes in education before looking to what needs to be done going forward. One of the biggest of these successes is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Over 50 years ago, the country embraced Brown v. Board of Education, which found the doctrine of “separate but equal” unconstitutional, thus guaranteeing every American student a seat in the classroom. While progress has been made since the Brown decision, a huge gap still remains when it comes to ensuring all children actually learn. The federal government has spent more than $�00 billion on K-12 education since 1965, yet significant academic achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers still exist in key subjects such as reading and math.

On January 8, 2002, the NCLB was signed into law with strong bipartisan cooperation. This law seeks to close this gap, and is rooted in the belief that all students – regardless of race, background, income, geography, or disability – can learn, and must be given the chance to do so. For the past four years, the federal government, states, school districts, parents and especially students have been dedicated to reforms that ensure no child is limited. And the progress that was intended when the law was enacted is being made.

According to a report by the Council of the Great City Schools, our nation’s urban schools have made

gains in both reading and math since enactment of NCLB. Further, urban school officials credit NCLB with helping teachers and school officials raise student achievement. “Our most recent report attempted to answer the question, ‘Have urban schools improved

student achievement since No Child Left Behind was enacted?’ The answer appears to be ‘yes,’” stated Dr. Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools.

Under Republican control, we have coupled these effective reforms with increased funding. Since Republicans took control of the House in 1995, federal education funding has increased by nearly 150 percent from $2� billion in FY 1996 to $57 billion in FY 2006. Title I aid for disadvantaged students, the cornerstone of NCLB, has increased by 45 percent since NCLB was signed into law.

While NCLB is awarded most attention, we must also recognize other education accomplishments over the past several years. These accomplishments highlight the breadth of education over a lifetime, with each piece complimenting the next. The Republican Congress has sent expansive reforms to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Programs for the President to sign into law.

Since enactment in 1975, IDEA has paved the way

Congressman Castle visits a classroom at a Delaware school.

The federal government has spent more than $300 billion on K-12 education since 1965, yet significant

academic achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and their more

affluent peers still exist in key subjects such as reading

and math.


for millions of students with disabilities to be awarded the rights they deserve within a school. This has lead to record numbers of students completing school and ultimately enrolling in an institution of higher learning. In 2004, we built upon past successes to ensure that children with disabilities are guaranteed a quality education based on high academic standards, as well as to strengthen IDEA’s focus on the educational results of students with disabilities

We have also enacted reforms to strengthen career and technical education, to ensure students have the skills necessary to enter the workforce or continue to an institution of higher learning. Vocational or career education plays a vital role in our educational system by working to prepare youth and adults for the future by building their academic and technical skills in preparation for postsecondary education and/or employment. I believe strongly that the reforms we passed go a long way in driving program improvement and ultimate success for students across the country.

We clearly have a track record of success. We now need the opportunity to continue this reform effort in improving our other education programs, such as Higher Education, Head Start, American Competitiveness and Workforce Investment and the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.

Every man, woman and child deserves the right to succeed. And when they are armed with a quality education, their chances improve dramatically. The Republican Party remains committed to improving our schools, attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers and encouraging parental involvement. These children are our nation’s future, and we are depending on them. RF

Michael N. Castle represents the State of Delaware in the U.S. House of Representatives. He serves as Chairman of the House Education Reform Subcommittee.

I believe strongly that the reforms we passed

go a long way in driving program improvement and ultimate success

for students across the country.


With the 2006 midterm elections rapidly approaching, voters are starting to direct their

attention to the candidates and the issues that matter to them. Political pundits, meanwhile, are trying to assign the midterm elections an overarching, political meaning – often by framing individual races in terms of global issues. We have seen candidates and pundits alike say that the 2006 elections are about international terrorism, domestic security, or fiscal policy. These issues are all important, and I hope that voters carefully consider which candidates best represent their views on these key topics.

Yet these are not the only issues facing our nation, and with the recent evidence about global warming, rising gas prices, and our reliance on foreign oil, we must evaluate candidates’ positions on the environment if we are to elect the right leaders. As the former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and a life-long conservationist, I encourage voters to take a careful look at the candidates’ environmental positions and records.

While there will always be important issues that divide Americans, in a March 2006 Stanford survey, 86 percent of Americans, including similar percentages of Republicans and Democrats, want the federal government to do “a great deal” to improve the health of the environment over the next year. In this spirit, the voters should evaluate candidates based on how they would work towards accomplishing common sense environmental solutions.

The environment is a crucially important yet often

overlooked issue in American politics. From global warming to carbon emissions, there is so much at stake. The choices we make on Election Day will have a lasting impact on the environment we pass down to our children and grandchildren.

For too many years, elected officials have ignored our environment as if it was an issue that would simply go away. Global warming signs were ignored, and our

dependence on foreign oil has continued. The time to make an impact on these vital matters is now.

Electing leaders who care passionately about the environment makes a tremendous impact on the globe. As Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, I worked each day with both Republicans and Democrats, who put aside politics in order to focus on the important issues surrounding our natural world. The importance of protecting our environment for future generations transcends political affiliations and goes to the very heart of Americans who strive to be good stewards of the land, air and water.

Many people forget that the Republican Party has long been rooted in environmental

protection. President Theodore Roosevelt was one of the original conservationists. As a party, we are witnessing a return to our roots, and a renewed focus on protecting our natural resources. This is vital, not only for our environment, but also for our party. The Republican Party’s unique, incentive-based approach to problems can provide the forward-looking solutions that this country needs.

Protecting the Environment We must stay true to the heritage of Theodore Roosevelt.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN

President Theodore Roosevelt was one of the original conservationists. As a party, we are witnessing a return to our roots, and a renewed focus on protecting our

natural resources.

RIPON FORUM October/November 2006 1�

With gasoline prices at record highs, Americans have a renewed interest in the development of more fuel-efficient cars. The majority of American voters would like to see auto manufacturers create cars that use less fuel and produce less pollution. As such, the tax credits for hybrid cars, recently signed into law by President Bush, received strong support in the Congress. The policy was so forward-looking and logical that it even received the enthusiastic support of the environmental lobby and the auto industry.

Similarly, representatives of both parties have shown support for increased production of renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, and biomass fuels. Domestic production of these renewable fuels is not only good for the environment, but also promotes rural economic development and may lessen the international trade gap. American innovation, in this case to improve the environment and stimulate economic growth, can always count on Republican support.

One of the common sense solutions that I have advocated is greater use of nuclear energy. Nuclear power is environmentally friendly, affordable, clean, dependable and safe. The reality is clear: we have no choice but to find alternative energy sources. Our addiction to fossil fuels is doing damage to the environment each day and crippling our economy with rising energy prices. None of our efforts to reduce gas emissions will have as great a positive impact on our environment as will increasing

our ability to generate electricity from nuclear power.

Finally, the revitalization of brownfields has been an issue that affects citizens of red states and blue states alike. Leaders must realize that to clean up abandoned, industrial properties is to give our children more space to play and learn. I was particularly impressed by Congress’s ability to work cooperatively as they did in 2001 to create landmark legislation to clean up brownfield sites across the country. The broad, bipartisan majorities that passed the legislation were testament to the issue’s salience and the solution’s common-sense approach.

These issues are only an example of the many issues on which willing public officials can find common ground, work together, and create solutions that work. Solving these problems will require leaders who are willing to make the effort to understand these issues and work with other officials to create innovative solutions.

So much is at stake for our environment this November, and real solutions are within reach. If the voters support candidates who understand the importance of protecting our environment, we will be closer to reaching these goals. RF

Christine Todd Whitman served as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from January of 2001 until June of 2003. She previously served as the 50th, and first woman, Governor of New Jersey.

Ideas that matter, since 1965. RF65


Congresswoman Dunn (r) at a 2001 White House ceremony at which President Bush signed into law a bill that lowered U.S. income taxes across the board.

Keeping Taxes LowLet’s not turn back the clock onprogress that’s been made.

JENNIFER DUNN

This year’s mid-term elections are already taking on an aura approaching that of a Presidential election.

Typically, mid-terms are marked by low voter turn-out and modest losses for the party of the incumbent President. But these are not typical times. With control of both houses of Congress up for grabs, November’s elections are generating an unusual amount of interest – not only among the two parties’ activist bases, but among the American people in general.

And well they should. For, in terms of keeping our economy prosperous and productive, the stakes couldn’t be higher. The result of these elections will determine whether our nation continues to pursue sound and proven policies that promote economic growth and job creation, or whether we revert to the kind of crushing taxation that frustrates the entrepreneurial spirit and further burdens working families.

In the 2002 mid-terms, when security concerns were uppermost in the public consciousness one year after 9/11, Republicans bucked the historical trend and increased their Congressional majority. I believe that the strength and resolve that the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans have demonstrated in the war on terrorism these past five years will continue to be a defining theme of the 2006 elections and will ultimately help our party to maintain control of the House and the Senate.

I am concerned, however, about the enormous implications that November’s outcome will have on our tax and fiscal policies. Naturally, the Democrats will try to obscure their intentions in this area. If they were up-front about their tax-and-spend agenda, voters would be driven into the arms of Republicans by the millions. Furthermore, I don’t believe we can count on the mainstream media to provide a complete and accurate description of how the low-tax policies pursued by a Republican Congress and Administration have generated impressive and sustained economic gains, kept unemployment comparatively low by recent historical

standards, and helped us to recover from a recession, inflated stock prices, corporate scandals, environmental disasters and an unprecedented terrorist attack on our nation.

Therefore, it falls to Republican candidates, challengers and incumbents alike, to run on a platform of keeping taxes low, and to remind voters of the positive effects that have resulted from the tax relief for individuals

and small businesses enacted every year since the Republicans took over control in Congress in 1994.

With a new Republican Administration joining forces with a Republican Congress after the 2000 elections, we got to work on fixing a federal tax code that was plainly dysfunctional and needlessly complex, one that punished hard work and thrift, discouraged savings and investment, hindered the international competitiveness of our companies, and perversely encouraged abusive tax avoidance schemes. As a member of the House Ways and

Means Committee, I was proud to play a role in passing the most sweeping program of tax relief and reform in a generation. Among other achievements, we lowered individual rates for all Americans who pay income taxes, doubled the child tax credit, reduced the marriage penalty, and phased out the death tax that penalizes family-owned small businesses and farms.

We built on the reforms of 2001 by passing the Jobs and Growth Act of 200�, reducing the tax rates on capital gains and dividend income to encourage saving and investment. This law quadrupled small business

The result of these elections will determine whether our nation continues to pursue

sound and proven policies that promote economic growth and

job creation, or whether we revert to the kind of crushing

taxation that frustrates the entrepreneurial spirit and further burdens working

families.


expensing to allow entrepreneurs to deduct the first $100,000 of investment from their taxes.

Given our successful record, Republicans need to emphasize the importance of making this tax relief permanent, so that individuals and businesses can plan for the future with predictability and confidence. Lest we forget, all the tax relief enacted over the past five years, including the relief for small businesses and families, as well as the phasing out of the death tax, is scheduled to expire over the coming years – unless Congress acts to make these cuts permanent. As Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist recently pointed out, taxes for a family of four with an income of $64,000 will go up 58 percent if those tax cuts are not made permanent.

Since Democrats will undoubtedly try to say Republicans are in favor of hurting senior citizens and working families, Republicans must point out that seven million seniors who rely on dividend income are benefiting from the tax relief we provided, while the overall tax burden on working Americans is the lowest it has been in nearly 40 years. And, faced with Democrats’ attempts to frame the issue in terms of class warfare and “tax breaks for the rich,” Republicans must consistently and firmly explain that raising taxes on business owners and investors will hurt economic growth and job creation, with middle class Americans suffering in the long run.

But it is not enough simply to call for continuity of effective Republican policies and demonstrate the deleterious effects that the Democrats’ inevitable tax hikes will create, as important as those messages are. Republicans must offer the voters a forward-looking agenda that builds on our past successes. Reforming the tax code must be one of the key points in this autumn’s national debate. The taxpayers deserve, and our future economic prosperity demands, a simpler, fairer, more pro-growth system that rewards hard work and promotes greater ownership. Our tax policies should do more to encourage charitable giving by individuals and private organizations, whose generosity has shown America a good nation as well as a great one. We must continue to offer incentives for Americans to increase their savings and investment in private markets to build assets for retirement and life’s other needs.

At the same time, Republicans must stand for restraining spending by the Federal Government. Since the Reagan era, we have seen that the enhanced economic activity and job creation resulting from lower taxes on businesses ultimately brings in more revenues for the government. But conservatives must make the case that fiscal responsibility transcends the narrow goal of keeping the federal coffers full.

Tax relief and spending are not of the same value. Certain green eyeshade, zero-sum analyses have created the mistaken impression that cutting taxes and increasing spending have an equal effect on the federal budget

and the larger economy, but they do not. Tax cuts allow families and business owners to keep more of their money. New spending results in the government’s controlling an increasingly large share of the economy. Conservatives must continuously rebut the arguments about the “cost” of tax cuts by demonstrating the true costs of ever higher taxes and spending. And Republican candidates must engage the voters in a discussion of how to limit spending and the growth of government through such concrete measures as a cap on discretionary spending, a line-item veto on new appropriations and mandatory spending, procedural changes in Congress, such as a requirement for a super-majority of 60 percent to raise taxes, and creation of a “Sunset Commission” to recommend to Congress which programs could be consolidated, restructured or eliminated outright with a focus on producing tangible results instead of perpetuating bureaucracies.

November 7 is indeed a time for choosing. In the weeks leading up

to that day, Republicans can confound the pundits and the pollsters by reminding voters of what our low-tax agenda has accomplished, the benefits that this governing philosophy will continue to provide, and the danger of reverting to the tax-and-spend policies that our opponents will inevitably pursue if they gain control of Congress. RF

Jennifer Dunn is a former Representative from Washington and served on the House Ways and Means Committee and in House Leadership. She is currently with the international law firm of DLA Piper.

Lest we forget, all the tax relief enacted over the past five years,

including the relief for small businesses and families, as well as the phasing out of the death

tax, is scheduled to expire over the coming years – unless

Congress acts to make these cuts permanent.


Yes, many Republicans have lost their way, resigned to the idea

that deficit spending isn’t all that bad and big government isn’t that big

a deal. But whatever problems the Republicans have in this election year

don’t compare to the complete lack of vision by the Democrats.

Limiting SpendingWe’ve done it before; we can – and must – do it again.

JOHN KASICH

Growing up in Pennsylvania, in a blue-collar family in a blue-collar town, I learned some valuable

lessons as a kid; lessons like being accountable for your actions, having respect and compassion for others, and understanding the value of hard work and character.

I carried these values with me to Washington, and they matter as much today as they did when I became chairman of the House Budget Committee in 1995.

Back then we, as Republicans, understood the significance of the opportunity we had been given, and we put forward, for ourselves and the country, a set of core principles to guide our efforts. These were common sense ideas rooted in the notion that Washington should have less power and individuals, families and communities should have more.

First, we sought to limit the size and scope of government, pruning government to keep it from growing in distorted ways. Second, we honored the fundamental American value that you shouldn’t spend more than you take in. Finally, we committed to do everything possible to keep from passing more debt on to our children and future generations.

We agreed that these core values were worth sacrificing our political futures for. Our commitment was so strong that we forced a government shutdown in 1995 to prevent another phony economic plan from being put into place.

Eventually we forged a bipartisan coalition of leaders in Congress who set aside their differences and stood for something. We balanced the first budget since man walked on the moon. We reformed the welfare system, which is still being heralded as a success. We eliminated government agencies. We limited the growth of government spending, including in entitlement programs. With the help of capital gains tax cuts and lower interest rates, we generated government budget surpluses well into

the future, and ushered in an era of explosive economic growth. Our policies worked, and we were successful because those policies flowed from our common sense, limited government principles.

But times and priorities have changed. War, terrorism, gas prices and immigration have all but saturated the news, and it’s obvious that voters are frustrated with the current political environment. These issues are important, but have caused so much partisan bickering that they’ve become a distraction. I can’t help but think our leaders are too busy painting the walls to notice the cracks in the foundation of the nation’s economy.

Where is the discussion on issues of fiscal responsibility like restraining government spending, reducing bureaucracies, controlling a ballooning debt, and addressing the economic impact of the retiring baby boom generation? As these issues continue to go unchecked, their solutions become more difficult to achieve.

Despite cutting tax rates in 200�, which helped the economy grow and increased revenues, Washington’s fiscal house is not in order. When I left Congress in 2001, the budget was balanced, $45� billion of debt had been paid down, and there were future surpluses of $5.6 trillion that could be used to save Social Security and Medicare. Now, however, the deficit sits at $260 billion and is projected to reach $�28 billion by 2010. Yet the spending continues. Government spending is likely to increase by 7.7 percent this year, outpacing economic growth.

The simple truth is that there is a lack of political will to curtail the growth of government spending, particularly the wasteful government spending stemming from many


lawmakers’ pet earmarked projects.

Congress and the Administration must answer the fundamental question of what should government do. Government should help people who can’t help themselves, and we need government to protect our borders, build roads, fight wars, and be there when natural disasters wreak havoc on people’s lives. But government can’t be all things to all people. Our leaders must systematically identify the things that the federal government is doing that don’t work and turn them over to the private sector. They must also identify the things the federal government is doing, but shouldn’t be, and turn those responsibilities over to the state and local governments. They must stand up to special interests, inside and outside of Washington, and be willing to make political enemies for the greater good of the country’s economic health. Finally, they must look forward to the fiscal tsunami about to overtake the budget as the baby boom generation retires, finding innovative solutions for reform in health care, Medicare, and Social Security.

Yes, many Republicans have lost their way, resigned to the idea that deficit spending isn’t all that bad and big government isn’t that big a deal. But whatever problems the Republicans have in this election year don’t compare

to the complete lack of vision by the Democrats. Where is their plan? Where is their alternative? They continue to offer little in the way of solutions other than raising taxes and shrill political partisanship. My question is – where does this leave the country?

People ask me all the time if I’m disheartened and disillusioned. They want to know how I feel about having all the hard work the Budget Committee team and Republicans did back in the 1990’s washed away.

My answer is simple. While our work has largely been undone, the model we established still stands. The problems we faced back then are essentially the same problems we still face now. At the end of the day, our approach of standing on principle and reaching across the aisle is our lasting legacy. And I believe this approach can still work today. RF

John Kasich is a former Representative from Ohio and served as Chairman of the House Budget Committee. He currently hosts “The Heartland with John Kasich” on FOX News Channel. He also serves as managing director at Lehman Brothers in the Investment Banking Division.

Ad??

Client/Contact:Account Executive:

Art Director:Copywriter:

Traffic ManagerProduction Manager:

Photo/Illust:

Destination:

First Insert:Fonts:

ChevronJennifer Cho

Anne SchoellRick Krieger

Live 7.375" x 4.875"

Meta-Bold, Meta-Normal, Transit-Bold, Minion, Transit-Normal

R e a d e r

01

Date/Time/User Name/File

JOB NO:

ART NAME:

JOB PART: 4C print 1/2 PageCVX ARC M64582 ENV4 HI BCI

The Ripon Forum

163414yr201_A GP

CHEV

RON

is a

regi

ster

ed t

rade

mar

k of

Che

vron

Cor

pora

tion.

The

CH

EVRO

N H

ALL

MA

RK is

a t

rade

mar

k of

Che

vron

Cor

pora

tion.

© 2

006

Chev

ron

Corp

orat

ion.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Here today. Here tomorrow.

Developing energy resources means protecting the earth’s

natural resources. At Chevron, we maintain some of the

highest environmental standards on earth. Developing energy

today, protecting the earth for tomorrow. To learn more

about our efforts, visit us at chevron.com.

PACIFIC DIGITAL IMAGE • 333 Broadway, San Francisco CA 94133 • 415.274.7234 • www.pacdigital.comFilename:

Colors:Operator: Time:

Date:163414yr201_A.ps_wf01Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black

SpoolServer 22:11:5906-05-05

NOTE TO RECIPIENT: This file is processed using a Prinergy Workflow System with an Adobe Postscript Level 3 RIP. The resultant PDF contains traps and overprints. Please ensure that any post-processing used to produce these files supports this functionality. To correctly view these files in Acrobat, please ensure that Output Preview (Separation Preview in earlier versions than 7.x) and Overprint Preview are enabled. If the files are re-processed and these aspects are ignored, the traps and/or overprints may not be interpreted correctly and incorrect reproduction may result. Please contact Pacific Digital Image with any questions or concerns.


My ironclad rule of speechwriting, which

is based on painful experience, is that the

speechwriter is the first to know when a campaign

has nothing to say because he is the one who has to put it down on paper.

Landon Parvin is a ghostwriter for political and corporate

leaders. He has written for three U.S. presidents, three first ladies and four foreign prime ministers, in addition to governors, senators, cabinet officers and other public figures.

Parvin served as a writer for both Ronald and Nancy Reagan during the Reagan Administration. In 1984, he left the White House and moved to London to serve as the Executive Assistant to the U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James’s. Upon returning from London, Parvin became an independent writer.

He helped Ronald Reagan, after leaving office, put together his book of speeches called Speaking My Mind. He co-produced the documentary film, Carnuaba: A Son’s Memoir, in which a son retraces his father’s 1935 expedition to Brazil and discovers himself. In 2003, Parvin spent two months in California working with Arnold Schwarzenegger in his successful bid for governor. He is also widely recognized for the jokes and humorous skits that he has written and developed over the years for political leaders.

Parvin received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Illinois, where he graduated with high honors, and then a master’s degree from Cornell University. He lives in Fredericksburg, Virginia, with his wife, Alice, and son, Maxwell.

RF: Why do words still matter in politics at a time when pictures and images seem to count for so much?

Parvin: Well, words still matter if they mean something. Unfortunately, political speeches are too often empty

clichés with no intellectual or emotional content. You can see the true power of words, however, when someone articulates an unarticulated truth, such as when Reagan called upon Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” It was so obvious but no president had ever said it. The logic of

its truth was unassailable.

RF: Republicans have been struggling in the polls this entire year. Is that because they’ve been using the wrong words to sell their product, or because they are trying to sell a product the public no longer wants to buy?

Parvin: It’s because they don’t have a product. When the Contract with America passed, I helped Newt Gingrich with the only prime time address to the

nation that a Speaker of the House had ever given. The networks put extra lights on the Capitol that night. I remember there was such excitement in the air. Where is the excitement of Republican ideas today? My ironclad rule of speechwriting, which is based on painful experience, is that the speechwriter is the first to know when a campaign has nothing to say because he is the

Interview

Landon Parvin with President Reagan in the Oval Office in 1983. (Credit: Ronald Reagan Library)

Q&A With Landon Parvin


one who has to put it down on paper. I think that’s why we are struggling.

RF: Ronald Reagan defined modern conservatism, and yet he won the support of many Democrats who had never voted for a Republican before. How did he do this and what lessons does it hold for Republicans today?

Parvin: Before voters trust your message they have to trust you. I think people trusted the sincerity of Ronald Reagan and that extended to the sincerity of his beliefs. They liked his geniality. But there was another element. I think people knew that although Reagan was conservative, he was open to new ideas. I am not sure we Republicans today convey a sense we are open and eager for new ideas. Many of our fall-on-their-sword constituencies are not open and flexible, and they have come to define us too much.

RF: Let’s return to words for a moment. If you were writing speeches for a Republican Member of Congress this fall, what would be your one paragraph pitch that lays out in a nutshell why he or she should be reelected?

Parvin: I hate to keep sounding downbeat, but I would be hard put to come up with that paragraph. How can we Republicans credibly argue that we are for spending restraint or limited government in light of what Congress has passed? In fact, I am inclined to think it might be good if we lost the House. Maybe it would force us to define ourselves in new ways. I am not so heretical that I would want us to lose the Senate, however.

RF: Okay then, if you were writing a speech for a Republican Senator, whose victory would help ensure Republicans kept control of the Senate, what would you say? What would your one paragraph pitch for reelection be?

Parvin: I said I hoped we would keep the Senate. I didn’t say I knew how to do it. The Republican Senate doesn’t have any more of a compelling argument than the Republican House. “We’re not as bad as the Democrats,” is what it comes down to right now. Let’s hope it works.

RF: Finally, you are known for not only having a way with words, but for having a way with humor. What is the secret of a good political joke, and why do you think there seems to be so little humor in politics these days?

Parvin: The secret of a good political joke is that it is based on the vulnerability and humanity of the politician. The reason for the dearth of political humor is due to

two things. One, politics has become incredibly bitter and personal. And two, politicians think that humor means doing zingers on their opponent. Every election cycle I get requests from campaigns to do funny zingers as soundbites for the evening news. I turn all that down. The purpose of political humor is to make yourself more likeable—not to stick it to your opponent. Once you are perceived as likeable, then

you can good-naturedly tease your opponent. RF

The secret of a good political joke is that

it is based on the vulnerability and humanity of the

politician.

Parvin wrote Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2003 Inaugural Address.


A Key to Victoryfor Republicans this Fall:We must adhere to the principleson which our base was built.

TOM FEENEY

Our future isn’t about appealing to a particular base, triangulation, or some other political tactic. It’s

about placing principle above all else.Republicans became a majority by articulating

and adhering to a set of principles. Campaigning and governing from principle furnishes order in the often chaotic political world. It develops a stable political base that supports you through thick and, more importantly, through thin. It fosters respect from those who don’t necessarily agree but respect leadership, strength, and confidence. Finally, it provides focus and discipline after one wins and then confronts the task of governing.

Ronald Reagan (like Abraham Lincoln before him) taught us that lesson. Before Reagan’s Presidency, Republicans too often took a “me too but less” approach vis-à-vis our opponents. The American electorate appropriately consigned us to a permanent minority status.

Reagan spent considerable time and study formulating his principles. Then the Great Communicator constantly and calmly articulated his “beliefs.” As one commentator observed: “Reagan gave the impression of speaking to the whole country at once, of saying ‘This is what I believe and I hope that a majority of you agree with it.’”

Reagan endured more than his fair share of political challenges and setbacks. He also understood that politics is the art of the possible – compromising on the terms of the legislation but not on the terms of the debate. But ultimately he restored America’s vibrancy, won the Cold War, and charted a course for Republican majority status on a national and state level.

Before coming to Congress, I served in the Florida House of Representatives through the 1990’s and rose from a minority backbencher to Speaker of the House. Republicans attained a majority in this large, growing, diverse, and vibrant state by campaigning on and

governing with these five principles, which represent the best in American self-governance:

1. Less Government — Reducing government regulations and size of government. Eliminating entitlements or unnecessary programs.2. Lower Taxes — Promoting individual responsibility in spending and reducing taxes or fees.3. Personal Responsibility — Encouraging

responsible behavior by individuals and families and motivating them to provide for their own health, safety, education, moral fortitude, or general welfare.4. Individual Freedom — Increasing opportunities for individuals or families to decide, without hindrance or coercion from government, how to conduct their own lives and make personal choices.5. Stronger Families —

Enhancing the traditional American family and its power to rear children without excessive interference from the government.

After coming to Washington in 200�, I added a sixth principle based on the federal government’s fundamental duty to protect its citizens:6. Domestic Tranquility and National Defense — Enhancing American security without unduly burdening civil liberty.

Campaigning and governing from principle

furnishes order in the often chaotic political world. It develops a stable political

base that supports you through thick and, more

importantly, through thin.

Debate

(Continued on page 22)


A Key to Victory for Republicans this Fall:We can’t forget about Centristsand Independents.

SARAH CHAMBERLAIN RESNICK

Five polls in August. Five double-digit generic ballot advantages for Democrats. One giant headache for

the GOP majorities.1 For months now, we as Republicans have repeated

the mantra, “thank God it’s not November, a lot can change between now and then.” Well it’s not yet November, but with less than 50 days until the mid-term elections, it is clear that our Congressional majorities are in real danger.

Elections expert Larry Sabato issued this ominous August prediction: “Historical trends and big picture indicators – generic congressional ballot tests and approval ratings of President Bush’s job performance in particular – have always been heavily stacked against the GOP in this ‘sixth year itch’ cycle, but aggregations of more race-specific indicators are now suggesting that Republicans are headed for their most serious mid-term losses in decades.”2

A closer look at the polls makes it easy to understand why Sabato would reach the conclusion he did. Despite all the talk of growing conservative dissatisfaction with Congress and the President, the real danger to our majorities can be found in the plummeting support for Republicans across the board by independent voters.

In key district after key district, in the battlegrounds where our majority will be won or lost, Democratic challengers are building substantial leads among independent voters. If this large lead among independents is to hold, or – even worse – to grow, we could see a tidal wave of disastrous proportions for the GOP.

For months, the far right in our party told us we needed to do more to excite the social conservative base. We had meaningless votes on gay marriage, video gambling, and abortion, and we had the President’s veto of potentially life-saving stem cell research. All of this was intended to “excite” the base. Unfortunately, the result of months of “exciting the base” is a looming

electoral disaster for the Republican Party.A look at the polling from the top 50 most

competitive Congressional districts shows that the use of these divisive wedge issues has seriously backfired among independent voters. In the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research study,� 52 percent of independents in the 50 most competitive districts said that the stem cell research issue made them more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress. Only 25 percent of independents in these districts said that the issue of stem

cell research made them more likely to vote for the Republican candidate. The result is a net negative of 27 percent –the largest of any issue polled. Indeed, “values issues” in general, including gay marriage and flag burning, polled almost as poorly. Almost half, 49 percent, of independents in these swing districts said that values issues made them more likely to vote for the Democrat, while only 29 percent of these same voters said values issues

made them more likely to vote for the Republican – a net negative of 20 percent.

Growing dissatisfaction with the direction of the GOP’s legislative agenda, particularly as it relates to divisive social issues, led to polling that shows the Democrats enjoying a 10 point ballot advantage among the top tier most competitive races in the country.

In the closing days of these critical mid-term

In the closing days of these critical mid-term elections, our party must return to its “big tent” roots and

make the case to centrist Republicans, independents,

and Reagan Democrats.

(Continued on page 22)


elections, our party must return to its “big tent” roots and make the case to centrist Republicans, independents, and Reagan Democrats. At this point in the game, it’s really a matter of basic math. Without these key swing voters, our Party could lose control of one or both Houses of Congress.

Centrist Republicans have laid out an aggressive legislative agenda that should serve as a road map for Republican efforts to attract critical independent and centrist voters. The Republican Main Street Partnership’s “Promise for America” is built on the central theme of security. The Promise for America recognizes that security is the fundamental building block on which success in every facet of life is built, and offers common-sense pragmatic solutions to the challenges facing our country.

The Promise for America calls for: Securing Tax Cuts, Deficit Reduction and Improving Competitiveness; Securing Retirement Benefits and Health Care for Seniors, Veterans and Families; Securing Our Future through Math and Science Education, Safe Schools and Research and Development; Securing Energy Independence, While Protecting Our Environment; and Securing America through Diplomacy and Peace through

Strength.Offering a legislative agenda that reflects the values

and priorities of average Americans, while setting aside divisive wedge-issues, will give our candidates the opportunity to reach out to critical swing and independent voters.

It is not too late to salvage the 2006 midterm elections. This election will not be won or lost based on what the disorganized Democrats do. Rather, it will be won or lost based on what we as Republicans do. Now is the time to embrace the big tent Republican Party that Ronald Reagan built – it is the only way to protect our GOP majorities. RF

Sarah Chamberlain Resnick is the Executive Director of the Republican Main Street Partnership.

1 See Larry Sabato’s “Crystal Ball” August �, 2006 update http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=DNW2006080�012 Newsweek 8/10 – 8/11: R39, D51, +12D; Fox 8/8 – 8/9: R30, D48, +18D; AP 8/7 – 8/9: R37, D55, +18D; ABC/Washington Post 8/3 – 8/6: R39, D52, +13D; CNN 8/2 – 8/3: R40, D53, +13D.� Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, July 2006 poll conducted for National Public Radio

(Chamberlain Resnik, continued from page 21)

These principles distinguish us from our opponents. Republicans are doers – men and women of action. We celebrate American exceptionalism – this country’s experiment in how individual liberty allows ordinary people to do extraordinary things. We are also instinctive protectors – guarding America’s 300 million citizens from predators and taking the fight to those who would harm us.

Democrats are talkers and theorizers – people entranced by theories bearing little connection with how the world really works. They’re enamored with transnational governance and approval by those overseas and thus distrust or discount the American people, American institutions, and the American experience. They gravitate towards a large and intrusive government replete with interference in free markets, excessive taxes, rule by experts and an unelected judiciary, and a stifling “nanny state” scolding us on our behavior. They seduce voters into a cycle of addiction – tempting with taxpayer largess, buying votes with promises of greater paybacks, and creating freedom-robbing dependencies.

As an American, I would hope that September 11 aroused protector instincts in all political leaders. But Democrats are increasingly defined by their radical

appeaser wing. When confronted by predators, they instinctively consult the New York Times editorial page, blame America first, fret about how the Europeans will view us, and empathize with those threatening us – a distressingly similar approach they took to America’s crime wave of the 1960’s and 70’s. Until Democrat leadership stands up to this vocal and influential element, we cannot trust them to protect us. Who do you want at the end of your call to 911?

America and our party were born in the crucible of principles. Republicans changed history when we stood by our beliefs. When we deviate from our principles by pursuing raw power, following poll numbers, focusing on the trivial, or fretting about what the Washington Post says, we disillusion our core supporters and impress others with our disingenuousness and weakness.

We can reaffirm the conviction of our beliefs or wander into irrelevancy. It’s time to campaign and govern with substance and meaning. RF

Tom Feeney represents the 24th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. He serves as Chairman of the House Conservative Fund, the political arm of the Republican Study Committee.

(Feeney, continued from page 20)

Recognized for the 5th consecutive year as The Dow Jones Sustainability Index’s Industrial Goods & Services Sector Leader.

SustainingOur Future

3M believes that active andresponsible citizenship canmake a successful companyeven stronger. We vigorouslyaffirm our commitment to sustainable development throughenvironmental protection, socialresponsibility and economicprogress. We are committed to help meet the needs of society today while respectingthe ability of future generations to meet their needs.

www.3M.com/sustainability


Reagan in Youngstown

WILLIAM C. BINNING

It’s been said that politics these days is fought along the margins,

with each party trying to motivate its political base while the political center is virtually ignored. If that is true, then perhaps it is a good time to recall a candidate who reached out toward the center and, in doing so, was able to win support that crossed and, in fact, transcended party lines.

The candidate was Ronald Reagan; the year was 1980. Reagan’s overwhelming victory over Jimmy Carter that fall was not just a repudiation of a failed presidency that was preoccupied with malaise and paralyzed by hostages. It was also the result of his success in connecting with a group of voters who had spent their entire lives voting Democratic.

Much has been written about Ronald Reagan’s appeal to these ethnic blue collar voters – voters who would forever become known as Reagan Democrats. But little if anything has been written about how his ability to connect with these voters matters today, and why the example he set in reaching out to them is relevant to Republican candidates trying to win election and reelection this fall.

In the wake of Black Monday

Twenty six years ago this October, Ronald Reagan made a campaign visit to one of the strongholds for Reagan Democrats in the United States – the Mahoning Valley of Ohio, which is anchored by the city of Youngstown and is located in the northeastern part of the state.

To get a sense of the political climate at the time of his visit, one need only look at the local newspaper, the Youngstown Vindicator, the afternoon after he arrived. The front page was filled with headlines that,

in many ways, were very similar to those being seen today. There was a headline about the latest scandal in Washington (“Jenrette Guilty; Stays in Race”) and one about the latest incumbent Senator to lose a primary election in his home state (“Sen. Stone Is Defeated In Fla. Democratic Race”). There was also a reminder about the ongoing crisis in the Middle East and the 52 Americans who were being held

against their will (“Lest We Forget, �40 Days.”)

To get a real understanding of the mood of the local electorate in the Mahoning Valley that fall, however, one really needs to look beyond the newspaper headlines of that day. One needs to go back three years, to September 19, 1977. On that day, Youngstown Sheet and Tube, one of the largest steelmakers in the world and the largest employer in the area, announced that it was eliminating 4,000 jobs. Valley residents now refer to that moment as Black Monday. Without a doubt, it changed the complexion

and outlook of the area forever.

Up until then, the Mahoning Valley had been one of the centers of steelmaking in the United States. Blast furnaces lined the banks of the Mahoning River, which cut through the center of the valley. Drive across the South Center Street Bridge, and you would not only be driving over a river, but you would also be driving literally through a working mill, with molten steel being poured off to the one side of the bridge, and massive smokestacks

rising up into the sky off to the other side. Attend a football game at Campbell High School stadium on a Friday night, and you would be sitting in a stadium where a layer of smoke hung above the field of play, partially obscuring the lights above. No one thought anything of it, though, because steelmaking was the way of life. But in the years following Black Monday, it was coming to an end.

Perspective

Youngstown Sheet and Tube, circa the late 1950s. (Credit: Youngstown Historical Center of Industry and Labor)


By the fall of 1980, an additional 9,000 jobs had been lost in the area. The smoke that hung in the air above the Mahoning Valley had been replaced by an air of uncertainty that was growing every day. The second and third generation children of the various ethnic and racial groups who had migrated and immigrated to the area to make steel and work in the mills were very anxious and uneasy about their future. These groups had inherited and held dear very conservative social values. Their families and their churches were the center of their lives. Culturally, many of them continued to have accents, customs, and diets from various parts of eastern and southern Europe. Politically, many also inherited loyal support for the New Deal and the Democratic Party of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

In fact, the Mahoning Valley had become so Democratic that most Republican p r e s i d e n t i a l candidates would not even bother making a visit. If the Republican candidate did appear, it was simply to make a brief tarmac appearance at the local airport. Richard Nixon did just that in his landslide victory in 1972. Four years later, Gerald Ford never came near the Valley at all. Despite the Republican decision to effectively write off the region, the Democrat’s hold on the area became strained. In the wake of Black Monday, many Valley residents began to view the Democrat leadership in Washington

as being disinterested in the economic uncertainty affecting their families and disconnected from the conservative values around which they were raised.

Pollster Stanley Greenberg wrote about this kind of sentiment in his book about Reagan Democrats in Macomb County, Michigan, Middle Class Dreams. “These were disillusioned, angry voters,” he wrote, “but they were not Republicans. They spoke of a broken contract, not a new vision. Their way of life was genuinely in jeopardy, threatened by profound economic changes beyond their control, yet their leaders, who were supposed to look out for

them, were preoccupied with other groups and other issues.”

Although Greenberg was describing voters in Macomb County, he could have been describing voters in the Mahoning Valley – voters who, in the fall of 1980, were finally being given an opportunity to find out for themselves what the Republican candidate for President was all about.

Straight talk and no instant solutions

Ronald Reagan touched down at the Youngstown Municipal Airport the evening of October 7. According to the Youngstown Vindicator, he was “greeted by a crowd police estimated at �,500 to 4,000. Though no speech had been scheduled, Reagan talked briefly, thanking them for coming out on a chilly night. Some had been there for hours.”

At 9:�0 that evening, Reagan traveled to St. Rose Church in the nearby town of Girard to meet with a small group of Catholic priests and union leaders. The group had

been trying to get a steel mill reopened, but had met with very little success in Washington. In their meeting with Reagan, they emphasized they did not want welfare, they just wanted to work. He listened to what they had to say, but promised them no instant solutions. Relating how his own father had once come home with a layoff notice when he was a boy, he also said he understood their concerns. According to one of the priests who

attended the meeting, Reagan was well received.

The next morning, Reagan, with his entourage and the national press following, visited some of the economically hardest hit steel towns in the Mahoning Valley, touring some of the mills that were still open, as well as some of the ones that had already been shut down. David Broder covered

Reagan addresses the media and a group of steelworkers in Youngstown in October of 1980. (Credit: Ronald Reagan Library)


the tour for the Washington Post. He wrote of one such visit. “Speaking in a largely abandoned and rusting Jones and Laughlin plant in the Mahoning Valley, where 1�,000 steel jobs have been lost in the last three years, Reagan told the workers: ‘We’ve got to protect this industry and all industries against dumping’ of below-cost foreign steel in the U.S. market, ‘and we’ve got to get rid of those thousands of regulations that make it impossible for us to compete’ with Japanese and European producers.” His message of hope, support and understanding delivered, Reagan departed the Mahoning Valley shortly after this speech.

A few days later, Clingan Jackson, the political writer for the Vindicator and one of the most astute observers of local politics at the time, wrote that, “Ronald Reagan undoubtedly helped his candidacy in the Mahoning Valley in his visit here Wednesday.” A straw poll taken by the Vindicator after the visit seemed to bear that out. When the final ballots were cast on Election Day three weeks later, Reagan won 50,15� votes. This was not a plurality of the vote – ultimately, he was unable to break the political stranglehold that 50 years of New Deal politics had placed on the area. But he did succeed in capturing more votes than any Republican candidate for President had ever won in the Valley.

More significantly, in coming to Youngstown and campaigning in an area that had always voted Democratic in the past, he succeeded in charting a path that no Republican presidential candidate had ever taken before – a path across party lines and into

the hearts and minds of blue collar, unionized industrial workers.

Lessons for todayHow did he do this? How

did Ronald Reagan connect with steelworkers and others with whom, on the surface at least, he seemingly had little to nothing in common? For one thing, what Stanley Greenberg observed about the voters in Macomb County was true for the voters in the Mahoning Valley as well. “These defecting Democrats,” he wrote in Middle Class Dreams, “saw in him an essential honesty, a willingness to

stand tough for his beliefs and to stand with ‘small’ America against things ‘big’ particularly government.”

But there was another thing, as well. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was not running out of Washington D.C. He was an outsider and he campaigned as an outsider. His mind was not cluttered with inside-the-beltway-policy-wonk-double-talk. For the troubled people in the Mahoning Valley, he seemed like a man who spoke their language and understood their problems. He did not promise them he would bring their mills back. He did promise them an

America that reflected their values, and he offered hope of a better and brighter America.

So what lessons does this hold for Republicans running for office this fall? The challenges of 1980 were not unlike the challenges America faces now: high energy costs, stagnation, inflation and strife in the Middle East. These challenges did not deter Ronald Reagan from giving America hope for a brighter and better tomorrow. They should not deter Republicans running for office from doing the same thing today.

Of course, Republicans in 2006 now find it more difficult to run against the Washington establishment as Reagan did in 1980; Republicans are the establishment. Still, there remain lessons to be learned from Reagan’s visit to Youngstown that could be useful to Republican candidates this year. These lessons include:

Talk Straight – Before John McCain, there was Ronald Reagan. He invented the Straight Talk Express. He didn’t sugarcoat the difficulties facing the Mahoning Valley;

he didn’t gloss over them. He just listened to what people had to say, told them he understood their problems, and promised to work hard to solve them if he were elected. And people believed him.

Be Yourself – Reagan was comfortable in his own skin, and people could sense that. He was always able to laugh at himself, but he always took the concerns of others seriously. When David Broder derided Reagan as a “Hollywood hardhat” a few days after his visit to the Mahoning Valley, the charge didn’t stick (the Teflon was

Campaign aide Lyn Nofziger, outside a local hotel, the morning of Reagan’s visit to Youngstown. (Credit: Ronald Reagan Library)


working even back then!) because the people of Youngstown sensed that he was not just some former actor and former Governor of California running for President. Ronald Reagan was also one of them.

Throw Away the Talking Points – Reagan stuck to a script, but it was a script of his own making. The positions he took were the positions of his party, but the words that he used to sell them were his own. Campaigns today are bombarded by talking points from Washington telling them what to say. But in today’s era of 24/7 cable news coverage and Internet blogs that print things word for word, talking points have a shelf life of one to two hours at best. Candidates who simply repeat things verbatim sent to them by the RNC do so at their own peril, and run the risk of being revealed as someone who can’t think for themselves. Spout

the party line – but do so in your own words.

If there is one final lesson to take away from Ronald Reagan’s visit to Youngstown, it is this – candidates should never be afraid to look beyond their traditional constituencies for

votes. Reagan did not win the Mahoning Valley in 1980. But the unprecedented level of support he ended up winning in the area helped put him over the top in the state, and

contributed to his overwhelming victory nationwide. It also reflected his view of campaigning.

“I don’t think of the voters as voters,” he wrote in a letter to a supporter on March 14 of that year. “They are people. And I have to tell you something else. I find it most stimulating and even inspiring to meet the people of this country as you meet them during a campaign. You learn what truly great people they are.”

Ronald Reagan viewed voters as people – not Republicans, not Democrats, but people. It’s what brought him to Youngstown 27 years ago. It’s also what made him great. RF

Dr. William C. Binning is the Chairman of the Political Science Department at Youngstown State University. He is also the former Chairman of the Mahoning County Republican Party.

If there is one final lesson to take away from

Ronald Reagan’s visit to Youngstown, it is this

– candidates should never be afraid to look beyond

their traditional constituencies for votes.

Solutions

I-229 Design-Build, SD; Lake Okeechobee Watershed Analysis, FL; McAlpine WWTP, Charlotte, NC

www.hdrinc.com

TRANSPORTATION

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER/WASTEWATER

Omaha 402.399.1000

18901 Advertisement for Ripon.qxp 5/2/2006 1:38 PM Page 1


Name: Eric Cantor Hometown: Richmond, Virginia

Current job: Member, U.S. House of Representatives.

Hobbies: Spending time at my kid’s sporting events, reading, and spending time with family.

Songs on my playlist: “Desert Rose,” by Sting; “Ordinary People,” by John Legend; “Don’t Stop Believin,” by Journey.

Books that I’d recommend: Leadership by Rudolph Giuliani; Hatred’s Kingdom by Dore Gold; and, Captive Warriors by Sam Johnson and Jan Winebrenner.

Political inspiration: Presidents James Madison and Ronald Reagan

Most important issues facing America: War with an irreconcilable wing of Islam, Global Competitiveness, Border Security, Energy Independence, Health Care Affordability

Why I am a Republican: Republicans believe in a free society with a limited, responsible government. We believe that government does not empower its people, but people empower their government. We believe that individuals, with inherent ingenuity and ambition, solve problems far more effectively than does government.

Profile

IN THE USA, OUR VACCINES PROTECT AGAINST: DIPHTHERIA • HAEMOPHILUS INFLUENZAE type b INFECTIONS •

JAPANESE ENCEPHALITIS • MENINGOCOCCAL MENINGITIS (serogroups A, C, Y and W-135) • PERTUSSIS • POLIOMYELITIS •

RABIES • TETANUS • TYPHOID FEVER • YELLOW FEVER

WORLDWIDE, OUR VACCINES PROTECT AGAINST: CHICKENPOX • CHOLERA • DIPHTHERIA • HAEMOPHILUS

INFLUENZAE type b INFECTIONS • HEPATITIS A • HEPATITIS B • INFLUENZA • JAPANESE ENCEPHALITIS • MEASLES •

MENINGOCOCCAL MENINGITIS (serogroups A, C, Y and W-135) • MUMPS • PERTUSSIS • PNEUMOCOCCAL INFECTIONS •

POLIOMYELITIS • RABIES • RUBELLA • TETANUS • TUBERCULOSIS • TYPHOID FEVER • YELLOW FEVER

8 1/2x11 inches 13/07/05 16:12 Page 1

Ripon Society1300 L Street, NWSuite 900Washington, DC 20005

PRST STD US POSTAGE

PAIDCOLUMBIA, MDPERMIT No. 334

ripon forum october- november 2006

Documents