Commentary: Peter Wehner: 'The Recalibration of Conservatism'

Source:Trinity Forum- writer Peter Wehner.

"Heard from a couple of prominent conservatives yesterday who mentioned to me the pessimism, and even depression, they sense among conservatives throughout the land. That’s understandable, given the results of the 2012 election. Because unlike 2008, this is an election Barack Obama should have lost and that the right fully expected him to lose.

Still, there have been worse wilderness years than what we’re experiencing now. (Retaining control of the House will prove to be an important check on Mr. Obama’s second-term ambitions.) In addition, the loss Republicans experienced can be leveraged to conservatives’ advantage, if we take away the right lessons from the 2012 defeat.

Two individuals who are doing just that are Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Marco Rubio. They spoke earlier this week at the annual dinner of the Jack Kemp Foundation. Both speeches (which can be found here and here) are well worth reading.

The speeches focused on the plight of the poor, the challenges facing the middle class, upward mobility and opportunity, and (especially in the case of Senator Rubio) education. Messrs. Ryan and Rubio offered intelligent defenses of limited government while also acknowledging the important role of government. And they used terms like “compassion,” “the common good,” “civil society,” and “social infrastructure.” Their tone was inclusive, humane, aspirational, and captured the true, and full, spirit of conservatism.

Listen and Subscribe to the Commentary Podcast

What Ryan and Rubio are doing is widening the aperture of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, which in recent years either ignored (in the case of civil society and education) or took aim at (in the case of compassion) issues and concepts that are morally important and politically potent. It isn’t so much that what was being said was wrong, though in some cases (like on immigration) it was; it’s that the vision being offered was constricted. 

The task facing conservatives today is somewhat akin to what Ronald Reagan faced in 1977 with the GOP, Bill Clinton faced in 1992 with the Democratic Party, and Tony Blair faced in 1994 with the Labour Party. In this instance, the Republican Party and conservatism have to remain powerful defenders of liberty and limited government. But they also have to establish themselves in the public imagination as advocates for reform and modernization, of the middle class and social mobility, and of a generous, inclusive vision. There is much more work to be done, and the speeches by Ryan and Rubio were encouraging first steps.

The necessary recalibration of conservatism is under way, and that is something that ought to lift the spirits of conservatives." 

From Commentary Magazine

American Enterprise Institute: 'Conservatism in the 113th Congress: Views from the Republican Study Committee Chairman & Chairman-Elect'

"Post-Event Summary

AEI President Arthur Brooks was joined by Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Steve Scalise, chairman and chairman-elect of the Republican Study Committee, respectively, for an event on Tuesday to discuss the challenges and successes of the 112th Congress. Representatives Jordan and Scalise also looked ahead to the potential policy issues of 113th Congress, examining the role that the leading conservative caucus in the House of Representatives will play.

Rep. Jordan began by reflecting on the Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) engagement in the policy battles of the 112th Congress, particularly the super-committee negotiations during summer 2011. Rep. Scalise contended that the House must embrace a “visionary agenda” in the 113th Congress that prioritizes tax reform and curbs entitlement growth as a means of achieving a balanced budget. The representatives agreed that the greatest threat to future generations of Americans is government-led redistributive spending, which, according to Rep. Scalise, stifles individual opportunity.

Among the many other topics discussed by Representatives Jordan and Scalise were the fiscal cliff, sequestration, and immigration reform. Rep. Jordan concluded by emphasizing that the RSC must continue to advocate for the policy proposals that reflect the committee’s fundamental values, because “if we stick with our principles, we will arrive at the right policy.”

–John VerWey

Event Description

Since 1973, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) has been the key membership organization for conservatives in the US House of Representatives. Today, after an election cycle that failed to drastically alter the political landscape, the RSC will continue to influence key policy areas that will define conservatism for years to come.

At this AEI event, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the current chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and the incoming chairman, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), will share their thoughts on the future of the conservative movement.

If you are unable to attend, we welcome you to watch the event live on this page. Full video will be posted within 24 hours." 

From AEI

C-SPAN: 'BookTV In Depth: Senator Tom Coburn'

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (Republican, Oklahoma) on C-SPAN's BookTV.

"Senator Coburn is the author of "Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders" (2003); and "The Debt Bomb: A Bold Plan to Stop Washington from Bankrupting America" (2012).

The Senator has also authored many reports that can be read on his website, including "Back in Black" (2011); "Oklahoma Waste Report: Exposing Washington's Wasteful Spending Habits in our Own Backyard" (2011); "Subsidies of the Rich and Famous" (2011); and "Money for Nothing" (2012)." 

From BookTV

The Washington Times: Kyle Scott: 'No New Taxes Without Spending Limits'

Source:The Washington Times- cover photo.

"Between servicing the debt and funding entitlement programs, our government is overburdened by its financial obligations. In the current negotiations over how we can avoid falling off the fiscal cliff, some Republicans have indicated willingness to give in to the Democrats’ demands that taxes be raised in order to meet these obligations. Unless limits are placed on spending levels, however, increasing government revenue will not solve the problem in the long term. Any increase in revenue must be accompanied by a limit on spending.

The growth in government is reflected in its spending, which has steadily increased as a percentage of the nation’s GDP. Whenever the government increases its spending obligations, the taxpayers are asked to give “just a little bit more.” Over time, this “little bit more” ends up being quite a bit more. Unless we put a limit on how much the government can spend, it will keep spending, and taxpayers will continually be asked to give more.

Placing a cap on government spending as a percentage of GDP would accomplish several important goals. First, it would ensure that the growth of government is directly tied to the growth of the private sector. It makes little sense for government services and spending to grow at a time when the private sector is struggling to find its economic footing. When the government seeks to help the economy by spending taxpayer money, the spending guarantees the growth of government and nothing else. Taking money from some and giving it to others in hopes of spurring economic growth is like taking water from one end of the bathtub and dumping it in the other in an effort to raise the overall water level in the tub." 

From The Washington Times

Washington Times: 'EDITORIAL: Obamacare’s Medicaid Time Bomb'

Source:The Washington Times- cartoon about ObamaCare.

"States already struggling to get by will face even tighter fiscal constraints thanks to yet another costly Obamacare mandate. A study last week from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured revealed President Obama’s health care takeover would dump $1 trillion in new costs on federal and state taxpayers over the next decade.

By Kaiser’s calculation, following Obamacare’s loosened eligibility conditions for Medicaid could add an additional 10 million people to the rolls of the insured. The tab for this will exceed $1 trillion by 2022 with Uncle Sam picking up $952 billion, leaving states on the hook for $76 billion. That represents a 26 percent increase in federal outlays, but the state share represents modest 3 percent increase — for now. The real crunch will come after 2022, when Uncle Sam is no longer required to foot the bill for the Medicaid expansion.

States have a way out of this budget-busting dilemma. The Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling earlier this year left it up to the states to decide whether to expand Medicaid under the Obamacare guidelines or not — in return for the federal cash. Governors would be wise to decline Uncle Sam’s white elephant, as they will hard pressed to find enough money in their coffers to cover costs once the federal largesse begins to taper off in 2022. 

From The Washington Times

Senator Rand Paul: 'Floor Speech in Defense of The Sixth Amendment'

Source:U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) speaking in favor of the 6th Amendment.

"Sen. Rand Paul floor speech in defense of the Sixth Amendment" 

From Senator Rand Paul

This is what a real Conservative and someone whose really against Big Government sounds like. Speaking up in defense of the U.S. Constitution and speaking out against indefinite detention. And that government in the United States doesn't have the constitutional authority to hold people, especially Americans, without a hearing or trial or access to a lawyer. As well as that every American has a constitutional right to a trial by jury.

TBS: WCW 1989- Ric Flair vs Terry Funk: I Quit Match (1989)

Source:TBS- Ric Flair vs Terry Funk in 1989.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Clash of the Champions IX 11 15 1989 Ric Flair vs Terry Funk I Quit match xvid”  

From TBS

I don’t know if you can find four better pro wrestlers for a cage I Quit match than Ric Flair, Sting, Terry Funk and Mr. Muta. The amount of pain and even torture these four men were able to put themselves through because of their conditioning, physical strength and just character and courage was simply unmatched by almost anyone else who has ever been a pro wrestler. Two other guys I would thrown into this group would be Hulk Hogan and The Undertaker for the same reasons as these four men.

Ric Flair was seen as a classical if not classy pure wrestler who made most of his living just wrestling in the ring and not getting into street fights like this and most of that is true. But he beat the great Harley Race for the NWA World Heavyweight Championship, a match where he may of lost on points, but beat Race in it. He was in a lot of cage matches, including with The Horseman against The Road Warriors and The Koloff’s and did very well in those matches. Sting could wrestle or fight anyone anywhere. It didn’t matter to him and Terry Funk was a street fighter who could wrestle. Similar to Mr. Muta.