Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!

Saturday night (before I made the mistake of going to RiverSplash) I was able to attended the Waukesha County Reagan/Lincoln Dinner at the Country Springs Hotel, thanks to a few generous donors. And I was really happy to be there, and inspired to be with so many other Republicans.

The reception was rather nice; I got to touch base with a few of the volunteers from the Walker Campaign, and I’ll hopefully be seeing more of them between now and November. The State Senators and assembly were really approachable and fairly nice as well. It was great just to be able to shake hands with all of them and meet all of the area representatives, and let them know that MUCRs are more than willing to help them out campaigning this fall.

Don Taylor is awesome by the way. I’d really like to sit down one day and pick his brain about campaigns of old, being a Young Republican and listen to his stories about campaigning for Republicans like Barry Goldwater was like.

The dinner itself was pretty good. James T. Harris was a great, energizing emcee and that really knew how to work the crowd. I’m plan to start listening to his radio show, if he is half as entertaining on the show as he was at the Dinner, the show should be amazing. I also got to sit at the kids table, which was actually pretty nice because I got to meet a few future MU conservatives and some from other schools as well.

Paul Ryan was one of the speakers, probably my favorite of the evening, though that is by no means a knock to Reince Priebus or Scott Walker who also spoke. It might be an overstatement to say that he’s my generation’s version of Ronald Reagan, but its pretty close. He’s an inspirational rock star Republican that makes us proud to be conservative.

Also I’d like to comment on the McCain Town Hall that I was able to attend with about 8 volunteers, mostly from MU and some from Madison, and we all got premo seats. If you caught any of the coverage on TV you probably saw me in the fifth row behind McCain. First of all it was great to see those volunteers there and I know that what they did was appreciated. Being able to get students to an event like this gives me some added confidence going into this fall.

Things were a bit hectic at first, but overall the organization of the event was pretty good. All the people on the McCain team or RPW that I talked to about were really great people. I was really impressed by McCain as well, I feel like he’ll be slapping Obama around in all of the debates this fall. I felt like his answer to the question about social security was pretty good. I also agree about alternative fuel sources, though I disagree abouth the belief of climate change, however he skirted the issue about drilling in Alaska. And I was most surprised by the fact that the one question that caught him off guard about Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America since McCain wasn’t familiar with it and for a few moments it almost became a Paul Ryan Town Hall.

This is from David Frum, himself a former President Bush staffer (speechwriter) who has been critical of Bush on occasion since he left office (most notably during his Harriet Miers and immigration debacles).

In case anyone’s wondering, I have very little sympathy for Bush or others who feel wronged by all this. Bush is the person who hired McClellan, whose conspiracy theories about the Plame affair unfortunately lead me to not want to read the book.

I don’t understand why many conservatives have gone crazy in response. The Bush presidency has been an enormous wasted opportunity. Is anyone really surprised when it falls apart once Bush’s chosen loyalists no longer have any incentive to drink the kool-aid?

Here’s Frum:

George W. Bush brought most of his White House team with him from Texas. Except for Karl Rove, these Texans were a strikingly inadequate bunch. Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, Karen Hughes, Al Hawkins, Andy Card (the last not a Texan, but a lifelong Bush family retainer) — they were more like characters from The Office than the sort of people one would expect to find at the supreme height of government in the world’s most powerful nation. McClellan, too, started in Bush’s governor’s office, and if he never belonged to the innermost circle of power, he nonetheless gained closer proximity than would be available to almost anyone who did not first serve in Texas.

That early team was recruited with one paramount consideration in mind: loyalty. Theoretically, it should be possible to combine loyalty with talent. But that did not happen often with the Bush team.

Bush demanded a very personal kind of loyalty, a loyalty not to a cause or an idea, but to him and his own career. Perhaps unconsciously, he tested that loyalty with constant petty teasing, sometimes verging on the demeaning.

Peggy Noonan also has a must-read.

Also, I’m 99% sure that McClellan ran over Bob Dole’s dog.

I have a big, big crush on Peggy Noonan. She swung for the fences in her column last Friday. It’s spectacular and I thought I’d share it.

Many are ambivalent, deep inside, about the decisions made the past seven years in the White House. But they’ve publicly supported it so long they think they . . . support it. They get confused. Late at night they toss and turn in the antique mahogany sleigh bed in the carpeted house in McLean and try to remember what it is they really do think, and what those thoughts imply.

And those are the bright ones. The rest are in Perpetual 1980: We have the country, the troops will rally in the fall.

“This was a real wakeup call for us,” someone named Robert M. Duncan, who is chairman of the Republican National Committee, told the New York Times. This was after Mississippi. “We can’t let the Democrats take our issues.” And those issues would be? “We can’t let them pretend to be conservatives,” he continued. Why not? Republicans pretend to be conservative every day.

The Bush White House, faced with the series of losses from 2005 through ‘08, has long claimed the problem is Republicans on the Hill and running for office. They have scandals, bad personalities, don’t stand for anything. That’s why Republicans are losing: because they’re losers.

All true enough!

But this week a House Republican said publicly what many say privately, that there is another truth. “Members and pundits . . . fail to understand the deep seated antipathy toward the president, the war, gas prices, the economy, foreclosures,” said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia in a 20-page memo to House GOP leaders.

Paul Ryan had it right a couple days ago … Republicans are failing to lead.

Why? Because, as Peggy says, they’re losers. They’d rather suck the teat of public spending than take a stand against bloated government. Want to guess how much fun this is going to be when Obama is President?

Charlton Heston, movie actor, civil rights and second amendment advocate has passed away.

Here are three clips from his speech to the National Rifle Association in 1989:

His speech is nearly 20 years old, but his points as relevant as ever.

I’m very depressed about John McCain. Politically depressed.

When I get politically depressed about the future of conservatism or the country, I often will go online to watch Ronald Reagan’s presidential advertisements.

“Morning Again in America” almost always does the trick.

But when I get extremely depressed about politics there’s really only one cure: watching Reagan’s A Time For Choosing speech from the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign.

You can find the audio and video versions here.

I should have added, obviously, that today is President Ronald Reagan’s birthday.

Happy Birthday to the big guy up in the Rancho del Cielo.

This says just about everything you need to know about George W. Bush’s legacy in office.

President Bush unveiled a $3.1 trillion budget on Monday that supports sizable increases in military spending to fight the war on terrorism and protects his signature tax cuts.

The spending proposal, which shows the government spending $3 trillion in a 12-month period for the first time in history, squeezes most of government outside of national security, and also seeks $196 billion in savings over the next five years in the government’s giant health care programs - Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor.

Even with those savings, Bush projects that the deficits, which had been declining, will soar to near-record levels, hitting $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009. The all-time high deficit in dollar terms was $413 billion in 2004. [E/A]

Thanks for the memories, Mr. President.

The following is an article about the University of Michigan’s plan to eviscerate the First Amendment right to free speech on its campus (this article is reproduced with the consent of Michael O’Brien, Editor-in-Chief of The Michigan Review):

The College of Literature, Science, and the Art’s Facilities and Operations Department is considering adopting regulations that could seriously affect the ability of student publications to distribute their products on campus, according to various interviews and documents obtained by The Michigan Review. (A copy of the draft policy can be found by clicking here.)

According to preliminary drafts of the proposed policies, distribution of publications would be limited to those governed by the Board of Student Publications (which includes The Michigan Daily and humor magazine The Gargoyle) and student organizations approved by the Michigan Student Assembly. The policy also forbids distribution of materials between April 14 and September 15. The Michigan Daily currently distributes a weekly summer issue on campus.

Robert Johnston, the Director of Facilities and Operations for LSA, said that this policy has been under consideration for the last two years, and is intended to minimize the amount of clutter and litter associated with publications being scattered around LSA buildings. The policy additionally seeks to limit access to outside publications, specifically commercial publications distributed in University facilities.

“We want to provide a place that publications can be distributed from, and still allow them to attain access,” said Johnston, adding that LSA is considering constructing what he called “nodes,” similar to the cubbies in the Michigan Union, for publications.

According to the draft policy, to gain access to these nodes, publications would have to apply on a “first-come, first-serve” basis. To accommodate all publications, though, the policy says, “LSA reserves the right to limit the number of times per academic term and/or per year in which a recognized student organization will be granted permission to distribute publications in LSA facilities.”

“What we need to do is determine which publications are distributed in which buildings,” said Johnston, “because we can’t accommodate everyone everywhere.”

The latest draft was presented to the Board of Student Publications Monday, raising the concern of some in attendance. Samuel Offen, the Student Publications General Manager, said he had concerns about the policy when it was first introduced.

“I just don’t like that they can decide who gets to distribute and who doesn’t get to distribute,” said Offen. “Even though I understand their need regards safety or security or financial-having to pay for additional custodial work-anytime anyone determines who gets to distribute publications, I think that’s a concern.”

Maya Kobersy, the Assistant General Counsel for the University, said the regulations are permissible as “time, place, and manner” restrictions under the First Amendment. Kobersy, who helped develop the distribution policy, said the University is “concern[ed] about the disruption to the educational nature and character” of its facilities posed by extraneous materials in LSA buildings.

LSA buildings, she asserted, are not “public” venues under the Constitution, and the entire facility– even the hallways and commons areas accessible after-hours– are encompassed by that policy. She concluded that the regulations pass muster.

“We are limiting things only in terms of there being so many racks,” said Kobersy. “That addresses the clutter issue.”

“I don’t have any knowledge of an intent to change the policy,” said Kobersy, when asked if the University will back off of this policy which could be challenged on legal grounds.

There could be other significant constitutional issues associated with the proposed guidelines, Adam Goldstein, an Attorney Advocate with the Student Media Law Center said.

“On rational basis, the amount of approvals [for distribution] given is not at all related to how many issues are handed out,” said Goldstein. “It doesn’t even address the problem. It does not approach the level of First Amendment compliance required of any state in the country.”

Though there are a few schemes where pre-approval can limit free speech, Goldstein said that this is not one of those cases for the University.

The process regarding violations to this policy gives power to the LSA Facilities as well as the Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) to assess violations. The policy states that organizations in violation “may be denied future opportunities to distribute or display publications in LSA facilities, or may be subject to other disciplinary action.”

Central Student Judiciary Chief Justice Alex Edelson said that he has not been informed of the policy.

“We have not been made aware but that’s not something that is offensive. It may be standard operating procedure,” said Edelson. Edelson said that CSJ has been given new powers by the administration during his tenure. ”

CSJ has evolved a lot over the last few years. It has just developed its source of power. There are moredetails we are still trying to work out regarding where CSJ fits into dispute resolution on campus,” said Edelson.

Edelson said CSJ’s purpose is to review violations to the MSA Constitution and to the Student Code of Conduct. University officials can choose to enlarge CSJ’s power. While Edelson did not comment directly upon the proposed policy, he said that CSJ involvement in similar issues only arises when a compliant is brought before CSJ.

“If you wanted to challenge the policy, that might require that you go to someone higher up in the administration,” said Edelson.

While CSJ had not been informed about the development of the policy, Jennifer Garfinkle, the business manager for The Gargoyle Humor Magazine, said her organization had been made aware of the policy. Garfinkle said that Cynthia Alexander, an LSA Facilities Manager, informed her of the policy proposal when she requested information about placing new stands on campus. Garfinkle expressed concerns about the policy’s impact on publicity.

“One of the main problems we have is recognition on campus, having a limited amount of time to have our publications in racks will severely limit the exposure that we do have on campus,” said Garfinkle. While Garfinkle said the policy would negatively impact The Gargoyle, she could not see how The Michigan Daily could follow the policy.

“Basically, just from the two week limitation at the start and the end of the semester, The Daily prints on the first day of the semester and on the day the semester ends and so it does not make sense for them” said Garfinkle.

Garfinkle, who was not aware of an updated proposal that enlarged the role of the Board of Student Publications, also criticized the role of MSA.

“My only real concern with MSA is if they had to approve materials that get put into racks,” said Garfinkle. She also said that The Gargoyle has scheduled meetings through Offen to provide input on this policy.

According to incoming Michigan Daily Editor in Chief Andrew Grossman, the Michigan Daily also has plans to meet with university administrators.

“We’re going to sit down with someone from LSA and talk about the policy, but I think its wrong to restrict publications,” Grossman said. Grossman continued that the Michigan Daily has always been an avodacte of first amendment rights.

“The first ammendment supports our right to distribute our publication, and we fully support the right of aohter publication to distribute theirs,” said Grossman

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) issued a statement Thursday blasting the proposal.

“Restricting student speech by excessively tight control on distribution of printed material is a dangerous step for a public university to take,” said Will Creeley. Creeley, an Associate Director for Legal and Public Advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, held that while the policy under consideration by the University may pass constitutional muster, it seems “strikingly harsh.”

In e-mail correspondence, Creeley took issue with the need for publications to apply, the regulation of display stands, the limitations on the number of distributions per term, and the possibility of internal judicial sanction. Creeley said that, while attempts by universities to regulate the distribution of student-produced print materials are not new, U-Ms proposal goes to greater lengths than most.

“Indeed, the University seeks here to institute a far more labyrinth process for distribution than FIRE normally sees, particularly at public universities,” said Creely.

Goldstein echoed Creely’s sentiment.

“This is either insincere or a monumentally ineffective way to do this,” said Goldstein. “Generally speaking, employees of the state are more sophisticated than this.”

Well if Ann Coulter says it, it must be true. Yes my favorite blonde female Republican wrote an extensive column on how Mitt Romney should be the Republican candidate while simultaneously bashing Iowa and New Hampshire voters for not doing enough research to make that obvious of a decision. Of course Michigan voters (and Wyoming ones) finally made the right decision.

However while on the subject of Ann I must make mention of her new book: If Democrats had any brains they’d be Republican. I just feel like her newer works are slipping. How to talk to a liberal (if you must) was one of the first conservative political books I read; it was great. Godless…not so much. It wasn’t bad but we get it Democrats really suck and her newest work seems to be little more of a montage of her best sentences ever. It’s like the TV show that puts in a clip show episode just so they can fit a 22 episode season. Though I don’t think she’ll be giving me my $17 back.

On to Ann’s theory:

…in the end, Republicans would choose [Romney] as our nominee. My thinking was that Romney would be our nominee because he is manifestly the best candidate.

I had no idea that Republican voters in Iowa and New Hampshire planned to do absolutely zero research on the candidates and vote on the basis of random impulses.

Dear Republicans: Please do one-tenth as much research before casting a vote in a presidential election as you do before buying a new car.

One clue that Romney is our strongest candidate is the fact that Democrats keep viciously attacking him while expressing their deep respect for Mike Huckabee and John McCain…

Turn on any cable news show right now, and you will see Democratic pundits attacking Romney, calling him a “flip-flopper,” and heaping praise on McCain and Huckleberry — almost as if they were reading some sort of “talking points.”

Doesn’t that raise the tiniest suspicions in any of you? Are you too busy boning up on Consumer Reports’ reviews of microwave ovens to spend one day thinking about who should be the next leader of the free world? Are you familiar with our “no exchange/no return” policy on presidential candidates? Voting for McCain because he was a POW a quarter-century ago or Huckabee because he was a Baptist preacher is like buying a new car because you like the color…

Coulter went on to reference a New York Times writer that does just what she says is happening to Mitt, while taking her usual, less that mature (yet funny) jabs. Coulter goes on to defend Romney’s pro-life stance in a pro-choice constituency, his religious background and moral character, saying Giuliani avoids the “flip-flopper” label even though he has flip-flopped on marital vows quite a few times. Overall I feel like she is making a relevant point. If Democrats are quick to praise McCain or Huckabee, the must be foaming at the mouth over taking them on in a general election. I’m sure they would be worried if they had to take on Romney, given that he is articulate, fairly brilliant and he has deep pockets. Though I do love any support that gets thrown Romney’s way, I really feel like he needs his GOP3 love as much as any other candidate.

As we all know, Wisconsin has the seventh highest taxes in the nation and the Democrats continue to raise taxes and attempt to inhibit business further. Group’s like YPM - FUELMilwaukee try to cheerlead and think we just need to spend more money, they point to the “millions of dollars being invested in the Fifth Ward, Mitchell Street and Bronzeville” as major inroads against our failing business environment.

The real decision makers and captains of industry have spoken though, and surprise, surprise, it really is our high tax, anti-business attitude that is driving businesses away along with our miserable public education system that struggles as Democrats try to kill the widely successful, innovative voucher program. Here is an excerpt from the recent CEO forum in Milwaukee:

The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce is working hard to convince Miller Brewing Co. and Molson Coors Brewing Co. executives to locate their combined headquarters in Colorado, rather than Milwaukee.

Denver’s effort received a huge a boost from a rather strange place Thursday: from Milwaukee’s business community.

Five of the Milwaukee area’s most prominent chief executive officers were featured in a panel discussion on “Global Wooing” Thursday by the Public Policy Forum. The five CEOs took turns ripping Milwaukee as a terrible place to do business.

The CEOs jointly described Milwaukee as a region with a broken public education system, runaway health care costs and an anti-capitalistic mindset. They said Milwaukee’s taxes are too high, and the region doesn’t know how to market itself, suffers from a lack of leadership, has wasteful government spending and doesn’t provide enough tax incentives to attract and keep businesses and create jobs.

And when they were done criticizing the region as a terrible place to do business, they piled on and did it again. And again.

The quotes from the CEOs themselves are priceless, it’s exactly what countless conservative blogs have said over and over again:

Paul Purcell, CEO of Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., criticized Milwaukee Public Schools and called for more charter schools and choice schools. “We need to fix MPS,” he said.

Purcell also denounced Wisconsin’s “bureaucracy and tax structure.”

John Shiely, CEO of Briggs & Stratton Inc., was asked if he would consider building a new manufacturing plant here.
“We probably wouldn’t, to tell you the truth,” Shiely said.

…
When asked about the need for taxes to support quality-of-life initiatives, such as public parks, Sullivan said local governments were inefficient and duplicative.

“We are squandering millions of (dollars) of federal money,” Sullivan said.

If we want businesses to start looking at Wisconsin, no amount of cheerleading YPM/Milwaukee 7 groups will solve our problems. They have their role but, the real tax cuts, business deregulation and incentives will come when Scott Walker is re-elected, we have a Republican in the governors mansion and a conservative legislature.

Peggy Noonan is one of my must-reads each week (along with Steyn and Beckner-Posner). She had a column about three weeks ago that I’ve re-read a couple times since because I enjoyed it so much and also discussed it with some friends.

The first part of Noonan’s column discusses the ginned up liberal story from Scott Thomas and TNR. Noonan then discusses problems with today’s leadership class. One of her paragraphs particularly struck me. I’ve included the preceding paragraph for some context:

But this new leadership class, those roughly 35 to 40, grew up in a time when media dominated all. They studied, they entered a top-tier college, and then on to Washington or New York or Los Angeles. But their knowledge, their experience, is necessarily circumscribed. Too much is abstract to them, or symbolic. The education establishment did them few favors. They didn’t have to read Dostoevsky, they had to read critiques and deconstruction of Dostoevsky.

I’m not sure it’s always good to grow up surrounded by stability, immersed in affluence, and having had it drummed into you that you are entitled to be a member of the next leadership class. To have this background in the modern era is to come from a ghetto, the luckiest ghetto in the world, a golden ghetto beyond whose walls it can be hard to see. There’s much to be said for suffering, for being on the outside or the bottom, for having to have fought yourself up and through. It can leave you grounded. It can give you real knowledge not only of the world and of other men but of yourself. In some ways it can leave you less cynical. (Not everything comes down to money.) And in some ways it leaves you just cynical enough.

Ms. Noonan is obviously not writing about only Democrats. Indeed, if the last seven years are any indication, I think she’s talking more about Republicans. Whatever her partisan or non-partisan intentions, Noonan is accurately describing problems with today’s leadership class.

And unfortunately, it’s not something you need to go to DC to witness. I wish I could say that it weren’t true of a very significant proportion of the “leaders” I’ve come to know on campus - including on the right. The problem Noonan points out infects a number of individuals who make the claim to be leaders.

I think this is evident in the level of risk one is willing to take. (I can even see this on the left on campus). Individuals who feel entitled to leadership positions take fewer risks in pursuit of partisan ideas, put themselves and their cause out in the open and on the line less and instead engage in protectionist behavior.

Other individuals who build a reputation for putting their necks out tend to continue such behavior once ensconced in a leadership position. Those individuals, valuing risk as a necessity to advance a cause, seem to be more willing to volunteer their welfare in favor of the potential to advance a cause higher than personal well-being.