Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Congressman Mike Pence talks with bloggers
By Mary Katharine Ham
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Are you struggling to keep up with rising gas prices?


(Note: On Tuesday, Bloggers talked to Congressman Pence who is seeking to lead the Republican minority.)

Congressman Pence: Good afternoon, thank you for letting me join you this afternoon. I’m delighted to be among friends. Personally, I would begin this moment by professing profound gratitude to all of those in the room whose organization, institutions, and publications have written favorably about our effort from Human Events, I think was the first out of the box, with a strong endorsement from the Family Research Council and others. Frankly, it’s a very humbling thing for me to receive these encouragements that I have received. I am mindful of the proverb that a man is tested by the praise of his peers and so I will thank you and leave with a sense of un-deservedness despite the generous prose. Let me say emphatically, for just a few minutes, why I am not running and why I am running. I am not running because I think any of the current leadership failed to do a workman like job in the 109th Congress. I think Majority Leader John Boehner took on a thankless job in a difficult environment, and I believe that he is to be commended for the job he did. He is an honorable man; he is a conservative. I, like most members of the Republican majority, feel a great sense of gratitude to John Boehner and his family for the sacrifices that they made to stave off what could have been a much larger route on Election Day 2006.

I am running not because I think I am a better man than either John Boehner or Joe Barton; I’m running because I believe that I might just be the best man for the job of Minority Leader. When I look at Election Day 2006, while a difficult war in Iraq was a factor, while a litany of scandals was a factor, I believe that fundamentally the foundation of public confidence of Republican government was eroded by our departures from limited government, fiscal government and reform. I believe that to restore public confidence in our commitment to those Reagan ideas, we would do well to bring new faces and new voices to bear on the challenges we will face in the 110th Congress. I believe the role of the Minority Leader is one that is largely defined by communication. We simply have to have the ability and the credibility to speak to millions of Americans who cherish limited government and traditional moral values and win back their confidence as we go into Election Day 2008. With great respect to the other candidates, I think I may be the best candidate of the three to win back that public confidence.

Let me close with a last provocative thought. I see the role of the Minority Leader in the 100th Congress as being characterized by two specific challenges. Number one, I think the Minority Leader needs to be prepared to lead a team of leaders in the Republican conference, challenge Speaker Pelosi and her big government liberal agenda at every term, and to challenge them on the floor, on the committee and on the early. We simply need to be willing to be that cheerfully, pugilistic loyal opposition that the American people will expect us to be; not engaging in the personal invective that has characterized much of American politics in recent years, but rather vigorously opposing the big government and socially liberal policies that will proceed inevitably out of a Democrat Majority. The second challenge, I believe, of the new Minority Leader, will be a willingness to stand with this President when we believe he right and to oppose this President publicly and boldly when he believe he is pursuing policies that violate our commitment to limited government and fiscal discipline. As many of you know, my career in Congress has been characterized by a willingness to stand with this President, even on difficult issues when I thought he was right. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the President and me on the war on terror and the war on Iraq. I stood with my colleagues through the difficult issues, like the Terri Schiavo case and stem cell research and stood with the President as he vetoed legislation that would fund the destruction of human embryos for scientific research. But I also believe the role of Minority Leader to be willing to challenge the President of our own party respectfully but forcefully should this administration depart from our commitment to core principles. I must tell you that I was a candidate for Congress in 1990. I was on the ballot in Indiana when the last Bush Administration working on deficit reduction with a Democrat majority in Congress passed what was then the largest tax increase in American history. As Moses said famously, “I’ve been burned by a Bush before.” I will say to you, that if I’m elected Minority Leader, I will stand with this President when he is right, but I will oppose this President when he is wrong. The duty of the Minority Leader will be to represent the views of our conservative conference to the White House, not to represent the views of the White House to our conference. With that, let me say again how greatly I and my family are for the support that’s been expressed all over the internet by the enormously influential voices that are in this room and on this call. We are deeply humbled by it, and I can tell you that win, lose, or draw on Friday, we will owe a debt of gratitude to each of you that we will pay by continued loyalty to the principles that unite us.

Question: I saw on the schedule today that three are three new spending programs to be voted under suspension. I’m getting the very strong sense that the GOP members in the House didn’t get it from last week, the election and what it meant. What’s the outlook right now on your race and is that sentence correct that they don’t get it.

Congressman Pence: I believe that most members of the outgoing Republican majority are working through a process that is probably similar to the seven stages of grief. Some are in denial, some are whatever the next stage is, and the next, and the next. What I will say is, I think it’s a very dynamic environment. I believe that when my Texas colleague Joe Barton entered the race on Friday, that greatly increased the dynamic nature of this contest. I think we are involved as a conference in a very vigorous and very cordial debate over the future of our party, both within the capitol building and beyond. That’s how I would characterize it. You have every version of reaction to a crushing loss is evidence on the floor of the Congress, but there is a lot of time between now and Friday. I believe the members are thinking and talking and considering very deeply the decision that we will make and the message that we will send on Friday.

Question: If you are elected Minority Leader, what do you think the Republican Party’s position and House’s policy on illegal immigration should be?

Congressman Pence: Well, let me tell you what it should not be. It should not be McCain-Kennedy bill that passed the Senate and will inevitably be the bill that comes straight at The House of Representatives. I think one of the reasons why Tom Tancredo and Steve King have both endorsed by candidacy for Minority Leader is because they know my heart. They know I have always supported border security first, supported the [not audible] bill from its inception through its completion, and was pleased to see the border fence legislation become law. They also know in my heart that I categorically oppose any legislation that would allow individuals dispersed back into this country with the violation of our immigration law, to get right with the law without leaving the country. I define that as amnesty; most Americans define that as amnesty, and while I did offer a compromise, a bill this summer with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, to be candid, the debates over compromise are now over. The reality of our time is that the Democrats and the White House have majorities in the House and Senate to move the McCain-Kennedy bill. They have the floor in both chambers to move an amnesty, and what Republicans need to focus on now is using every weapon in our arsenal, in every rhetorical power that we have, to convey to the American people just how harmful it would be if we granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants during the 110th Congress. I am dedicated to that; I hope that my willingness to find some compromise will would make me an even more credible voice in opposing amnesty. It seems that one of the ways we’ve been dismissed on the right is with the suggestions that we don’t want to solve the whole problem. At least this summer I’ve earned something of a reputation for wanting to solve the problem in a way that reflected conservative and Republican principles. But amnesty is not the answer. Amnesty is all we will get from the Senate and as Minority Leader I will lead our conference to do everything in our power to expose amnesty legislation, not if, but when it proceeds from the U.S. Senate.

As I told all of my colleagues, I stand by the legislation that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and I built, that we put border security first, and then create a guest worker program outside of the United States, only after completed border security measures. And applicants to that guest worker program would have to leave the United States of America to apply. We add into that strong employer enforcement sanctions. I believe then and I believe now that is a solution that could work and could be acceptable to many conservatives, me included. But I want to say again, that ship has sailed. That compromise will not be considered. We are going to get the McCain-Kennedy Bill. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs a math lesson. They have the math; they have control of the floor of the House and Senate now. I was heartened to hear Senator Jon Kyl expressed the willingness in the last twenty-four hours to use a filibuster in the Senate to stop an amnesty bill. I will look forward to being the power of the House minority effort to back that rhetorically and to use every weapon in our arsenal. The American people do not support amnesty and do not want to see Congress pass amnesty legislation. With that being said, I still believe the idea that we floated with a good one, and if we were in a different universe, I would still be advocating for it.

Question: Congressman, have you gotten any sense that your colleagues in the Republican conference feel that overspending played any significant role in our losses? Or did they just kind of feel like it because of the war and other reasons? Continued...

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

Mary Katharine Ham is a contributor to Townhall Magazine.

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

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

National Capitulation to Invasion?
Dear Mike Pence,



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sincerely,

Thor H. Asgardson
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*