Ripon Forum Winter 2004

INSIDE: Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham � RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie � Assistant Secretary Wade HornGovernor Bill Owens � Rep. Tom Reynolds � Rep. Ralph Regula � Rep. Don Manzullo � Rep. Nancy Johnson

Case Against Kerry � The Bush Boom � Close Races to Watch � Daschle in Disarray � French Betrayal

Forum

TheTheVOLUME 38 • NUMBER IV • WINTER 2004

ForumRiponRipon

www.riponsoc.org

BUSHVS.

YESTERDAY’SLIBERALISM

BUSHVS.

YESTERDAY’SLIBERALISM

3Ripon Forum • Winter 2004 www.riponsoc.org

PublisherThe Ripon Society

PresidentRichard S. Kessler

Executive DirectorElvis Oxley

Communications Director,Editor

Jeffrey T. Kuhner

Policy Research Director,Political Editor

Stephen F. Manfredi

Foreign Policy EditorDr. Grace Vuoto

Culture EditorRachel K. Ayerst

Editorial AssistantsRobin KesslerKaren Padgett

Design/Art DirectionJohn Boone

Banta PubNet

ProductionBanta Corp.

© Copyright 2004By The Ripon Society • All Rights Reserved

One Year Subscription:$25.00 individuals

$10.00 students

www.riponsoc.org

On the cover:President George W. Bush waves from thesteps of the Marine One helicopter beforedeparting for Camp David.Photo by Shaun Heasley/Getty Images

VOLUME 38 • NUMBER IV WINTER 2004Contents

The Ripon Forum (ISSN 0035-5526) is published quarterly by The Ripon Society. The Ripon Society is located at 1300 L Street,NW , Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005. Periodicals postage pending at Washington, DC and additional mailing offices.

Postmaster, send address changes to: The Ripon Forum, 1300 L Street, NW , Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005.

Comments, opinion editorials and letters to the magazine should be addressed to: The Ripon Forum, 1300 L Street, NW,Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 or may be transmitted electronically to: [email protected].

The

ForumRipon

4 Note From the Executive Director

POLITICS5 The Bush Boom - by Daniel J. Mitchell6 Republican Worry-Warts Need Not Fear

- by Robert Stacy McCain8 From Entitlement to Ownership - by Governor Bill Owens

COVER STORY10 John Kerry is Yesterday’s Liberal - by Jeffrey T. Kuhner

ELECTION FORUM12 Kerry’s Dovish Diplomacy - by John O’Sullivan14 Costs of Kerry-Care - by John C. Goodman16 Defeating Daschle - by Stephen F. Manfredi18 Key Races to Watch - by Donald Lambro20 GOP Poised for Victory - by U.S. Rep. Tom Reynolds21 Republican Accomplishments - by U.S. Rep. Ralph Regula22 Gubernatorial Races in November - By John Hood

INTERVIEW24 The Republican Moment - Ed Gillespie26 Strengthening U.S. Energy Security - Spencer Abraham28 Fostering Strong Families - Wade Horn

PUBLIC POLICY30 Improving Treatment of Chronic Illnesses

- by U.S. Rep. Nancy L. Johnson 32 A 21st Century Jobs Agenda - by U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo33 Patriot Act Preserves Security - by Patrick M. Garry34 Large Strides in Trade Policy - by Claude Barfield35 Reforming the Legal System - by Thomas J. Donohue

FOREIGN AFFAIRS36 French Betrayal - by Kenneth R. Timmerman37 Ukraine Confronts Communist Past

- by Yarema Gregory Kelebay

THE JUST CAUSE38 Putin: The New Stalin - by Grace Vuoto

The Ripon Society is a research andpolicy organization. It is located inWashington, D.C. There areNational Associate membersthroughout the United States.Ripon is supported by chapterdues, individual contributions, andrevenues from its publications.

combination of a significant amount of travel and slowly making my way through AnthonyEveritt’s Cicero has led me to the following conclusion: most of us have completely forgottenour basic civics lessons.

Case in point: A gentleman on my train from Oslo to Bergen stated that he was an Independent voterfrom Massachusetts. He was unsure he could vote for President Bush once again though he typically votedRepublican. Significant differences of opinion on topics like stem-cell research, the national debt and thepro-life/pro-choice debate made it difficult for my traveling mate to be a zealous Bush supporter.However, by applying basic civics to his dilemma, I was able to restructure his mode of thought.

First, I noted that, though our President currently is not inclined to promote new stem-cellresearch, there are several hundred other countries in the world that may choose to do so with theirresources. We are not the only R&D source for the world. Similarly, in the next four years and beyond,there is secure federal funding for those lines of stem cells that have already been discovered. Thus, unlessthere is any legislative or judicial branch interference or augmentation, the status quo will continue.

Second, I reminded the gentleman that a large part of the fiscal debt finances the war on terrorismboth domestically and abroad. The unexpected catastrophe of 9/11 justifiably prompted higher levels ofHomeland Defense spending with the full blessing of the legislative branch. He validated that justifica-tion with a deliberate nod. I also asked whether he really thought the President really wished a legacy ofdebt upon our citizenry, to which he said “no.”

Third, I addressed his pro-life/pro-choice dilemma with the most simple of rhetorical questions:“What branch of government was responsible for the final decision on Roe v. Wade? Has any Presidentbeen a member of that branch since 1973?” The answers to those questions, of course, are “judicial” and“no,” respectively. This moot question is no longer related to the executive branch, nor any legislativeelection contest for that matter. Thus my plea to my fellow traveler to remember the bottom line…

Bottom Line: The president of the United States is one extremely powerful person, but he isneither omnipotent nor omniscient. Our forefathers designed this three-branched system, with all of itschecks and balances, to ensure against despotism and for a rationally regulated, purposely methodicalarrangement by which laws are made, maintained, and modified for the common good. So, onNovember 2, remember your civics and ask yourself: “have I made a civically sound and educated choicewith my vote?” By reading The Ripon Forum, we feel you will.

Inside this issue you will find a compelling, exclusive interview with Secretary of Energy SpencerAbraham by our editor, Jeffery T. Kuhner. Secretary Abraham underscores the importance of drilling formore domestic oil reserves in ANWR, and therefore minimizing our dependence on Middle Easterncontrolled OPEC reserves. You will also learn the Secretary’s stance on alternate fuel cell vehicles.

In yet another coup for The Ripon Forum, RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie took time to discusspolitics and the November elections with our editor. He discussed the extreme importance ofregistering family and friends to vote, and strategies to ensure voter turnout.

If The Ripon Forum was a baseball franchise, that talented team of Abraham and Gillespie would nodoubt be leading their League. In addition to this one-two punch, our Election Issue also features suchheavy hitters as Colorado Governor Bill Owens’ treatise on an “ownership society” and RepresentativeDon Manzullo’s (R-IL) plan for continued economic growth.

Once again The Forum succeeds as a provocative, thoughtful compilation of the most importanttopical discussions of our times. Enjoy the read.

4 Ripon Forum • Winter 2004www.riponsoc.org

Note From The Executive Director

A

Best regards,

Elvis OxleyExecutive [email protected]

Politics


During the 2000 campaign, George W.Bush promised significant tax relief:he has kept his promise. President

Bush’s tax cuts are sound policy. Bylowering tax rates and reducing thedouble-taxation of savings and investment,President Bush has improved the economy.

The 2003 tax cut was especially bene-ficial. It reduced the double-taxation ofdividends and capital gains. The policy alsoresulted in accelerating the income taxrate reductions approved in 2001 so thatthey took effect in 2003 — not in2004 and 2006 as originally scheduled.This was very important since the originalrate-reduction schedule had been encourag-ing investors and entrepreneurs to postponeproductive activity.

The economy is affected by more thanjust tax policy, but there is little doubt thatthe Bush tax cuts have made America morecompetitive. The United States has justenjoyed the strongest 12 months ofeconomic growth since the Reagan boom.Moreover, the unemployment ratehas dropped from 6.3 percent inJune, 2003 to 5.4 percent today. Thisunemployment rate is far below the level ofjoblessness in other industrialized nations(France and Germany, for example, sufferfrom double-digit unemployment), and isalso lower than the average unemploymentrate in the United States during the 1970s,1980s and 1990s.

The Bush tax cuts are also commend-able because they shift the internal revenuecode in the direction of fundamentalreform. Proposals such as the flat taxand the national sales tax are based on com-mon principles: low tax rates and nodouble-taxation of savings and investment.Yet this is exactly what is achieved bythe main components of President Bush’stax policy:

1. Marginal tax rates have beenreduced for all taxpayers. This is a laudabledevelopment since the marginal tax rate(the tax paid on additional increments ofincome) determines the degree to which thesystem discourages productive economicbehavior. Most important is the fact thatthe top tax rate on personal income has

dropped from 39.6 percent to 35 percent— a reform that should encourageentrepreneurs and investors to create morewealth for the American economy.

2. Double-taxation has been mitigated.Because of the capital gains tax, thecorporate income tax, personal income tax,and the death tax, it is possible for a singledollar of income to be taxed four times.This is a perverse policy since everyeconomic theory — even Marxism —agrees that capital formation is the key tolong-run growth and higher living stan-dards. The good news is that the Bush taxcuts significantly reduced double taxation.The capital gains tax has been reduced from20 percent to 15 percent, and the top taxrate on dividends has been lowered from39.6 percent to 15 percent. Last butnot least, the death tax will be abolishedin 2010.

It is especially worth noting that thedividend tax cut already has yieldedspectacular results. The AmericanShareholders Association has reported 298announcements of initial or increaseddividend payments by the 500 largestcorporations — significantly higher thanthe 192 similar announcements in thepreceding year. Individual dividend incomefrom Standard & Poor’s 500 firms increased50 percent in 2003, from $32.7 billion to$49.1 billion. The National Bureauof Economic Research has published apaper estimating that total dividendswill rise by $86 billion and that thevalue of the stock market will climb by$690 billion.

To be sure, the Bush tax cuts were notperfect and much remains to be done. Thecomplexity of the tax system is just as badas it was under President Bill Clinton —and may even be worse. And there are manyfeatures of the tax system that still cry outfor reform. The alternative minimum tax isa growing nightmare. For instance, it forcesmillions of taxpayers to calculate their taxestwo ways – and then to pay the governmentwhichever amount is higher. The corporatetax is another blemish. The United Stateshas the second highest corporate tax rate inthe industrialized world — higher even

than the corporate rate in welfare states likeFrance and Sweden! Last but not least, theIRS continues to run roughshod overtaxpayers and the Constitution.

But the perfect should not be theenemy of the good. The Bush tax cuts weredesigned to reduce the tax burden andboost the economy. They have achievedthese goals.

Critics argue that the Bush tax cutsshould have been “targeted,” but thisassumes that government should pickwinners and losers. Moreover, it isimportant to understand that not all taxcuts are created equal. Some tax cuts,specifically “supply-side” reductions in taxrates on work, savings, investment, andentrepreneurship, can yield large benefits tothe economy. In contrast, targeted tax cutsdo not boost incentives for productivebehavior and are much more likely tofurther complicate the tax system.

The Bush tax cuts are also falselyaccused of causing long-run deficits. This isincorrect. From 1951 to 2000, federal taxrevenues averaged 18.1 percent of grossdomestic product (GDP). Yet since taxrevenues for 2012-2014 will average 18.1percent of GDP (assuming that the tax cutsare made permanent), it is clear thatlong-run deficits are caused by the growthof spending.

Indeed, critics would be on muchfirmer ground if they lambasted theBush administration for over-spending.Education spending, farm subsidies andentitlement expansion increase the burdenof government on the economy. The taxcuts have helped the economy overcomethis burden, but it will be almostimpossible to make the tax cuts permanentunless there is a newfound commitment tofiscal discipline. It remains to be seenwhether Congress and, should he win inNovember, President Bush can meet thischallenge in the next four years.

— Daniel J. Mitchell isMcKenna Senior Fellow in Political

Economy at the Heritage Foundation

Tax cuts spur growth and boost competitionThe Bush Boom

By Daniel J. Mitchell

Politics


The 2004 campaign offers a field day forRepublican worry-warts. Economicrecovery has been slow and uneven.

Polls show that Americans have qualmsabout the decision to go to war in Iraq.President George W. Bush’s proposal tooffer “guest worker” status to illegal immi-grants has alienated some voters in hispolitical base. Yet Democrats, eager toavenge their narrow and hotly contesteddefeat in 2000, are mobilized, organizedand lavishly funded by billionaire GeorgeSoros. These factors augment the worry-wart’s anxiety.

The Republican worry-wart, althoughsteadfastly loyal to the GOP, is alwaysconvinced that the political sky is falling.All it takes is a negative headline in TheNew York Times, a slight slip in the latestUSA Today poll, a bad monthly report fromthe Department of Labor, and the worry-wart is certain that November will bring aDemocratic landslide. In his daily life, theworry-wart may be confident, cheerful andoptimistic, but when it comes to politics, heis a hopeless defeatist.

With another crucial election pending,perhaps it will comfort Republican worry-warts to be reminded of the University ofIowa professor whose scientific model —based on election results going back to1948 — predicted that the Democraticpresidential candidate would win with 56.2percent of the vote. Why should this pre-diction be so comforting? Because IowaProfessor Michael Lewis-Beck issued thatforecast in May 2000.

Indeed, after calculating all the usualfactors in presidential elections, Mr. Lewis-Beck’s computerized analysis indicatedthat Al Gore would be elected by alandslide. Nor was Mr. Lewis-Beck alone inregarding the 2000 election as a handy winfor the Democrats. As CNN analyst JeffGreenfield points out, “Other forecastersgave Gore anywhere from 52.8 to 60.3percent of the two-party vote.”

Why were these predictions so wrong?Because they omitted a very importantfactor in any election: the personality of thecandidates.

Political prophets and pundits routinelyunderestimate the kind of gut-hunchfactors that make voters choose onecandidate over another. Despite all thefactors weighing in his favor, Mr. Gorewas simply a bad candidate. In publicappearances and especially on television,Mr. Gore appeared to be uptight andsmarmy. As Mr. Greenfield put it, Mr. Goreappeared to be “the kid in the back of theclass who reminded the teacher she’d for-gotten to give out homework the day beforeChristmas break.” Mr. Gore’s pompouspersona was highlighted in nationally tele-vised debates where his know-it-all manner(“What about Dingell-Norwood?” Mr.Gore demanded when the subject turned tohealth care) was in stark contrast with thedown-home sincerity of George W. Bush.Even Mr. Bush’s Texas accent contributedto the perception that he was a regular guy.

Candidates, not issues, win elections.This is a truth so simple and basic that one

might think it could never be overlooked.Yet, it often is.

Like the ancient Roman augurs seek-ing omens in the entrails of birds, pollstersdive into “swing” states to track downundecided voters and to ask them theiropinion on foreign policy and free trade.The results are dissected demographicallyon each issue. Thus, we are told, forexample, about the economic views ofwomen who fall into the age group 45-54and who are in union households. The bigpicture is left out of this microscopiccalculus: Head to head, side by side, whichone of these men does the electorateactually like?

Whatever his failings, Mr. Bush isbasically likeable. This was a key factor in2000, and is prominent again in 2004. Hisbasic likeability is now giving Democratsnightmares. When the infamous Iowa“scream” derailed the energetic HowardDean’s Democratic primary campaign,establishment Democrats quickly jumpedaboard the John Kerry bandwagon. Butonce Mr. Kerry secured his party’snomination, Democrats were dismayed tonote that they faced a repeat of the 2000election: A stiff, pompous, boringDemocrat competing with the aw-shuckscharm of a smiling Texan.

Mr. Kerry’s dour demeanor is only oneof his many shortcomings as a candidate.Ever since he won the New Hampshireprimary, Mr. Kerry has flip-flopped onevery issue — at times campaigning in dia-metric opposition to his own Senate record.When Mr. Kerry declared, in regard to an$87 billion measure to fund the war in Iraq,that he “voted for it before voting againstit,” he encapsulated his tendency to beinconsistent in a single sentence moreperfectly than any “Saturday Night Live”writer (or Bush campaign operative) couldever have hoped to do.

Who will win on Nov. 2nd? Writingweeks in advance of Election Day,no one can confidently predict theoutcome. Whatever the trend in polls,unexpected events (remember that two-decade-old Maine drunk-driving ticket thatturned up five days before Election Day2000?) can always cause a shift in support.But there are plenty of reasonsfor Republicans — even the worry-warts —to be hopeful.

— Robert Stacy McCain is an assistantnational editor for The Washington Times

Republican Worry-Warts Need Not Fear

By Robert Stacy McCain

“Candidates win elections. This is a truth so

simple and basic that one might think it could

never be overlooked, and yet it often is.”

President’s charm will be deciding factor

Government is notorious as the lastinstitution to recognize changingtimes. Though this will probably

always be true, it is becoming increasinglyevident these days that even governmentis waking up to a new reality: 21st centuryAmericans are savvy, discerning folks whoare demanding greater flexibility in makingthe most important decisions that affecttheir lives.

We are beginning to see a shift inpublic policy from top-down, bureaucraticsolutions to self-directed approaches tailoredto the individual. This shift will transformAmerican culture and government: we aremoving from an entitlement society to anownership society.

This transformation is the result ofchanging economic conditions and a moresophisticated workforce. It is also the resultof innovative thinking by policy experts andforward-looking leadership. Most notably,President George W. Bush has devoted agood deal of time to promoting new ideas.

Economic times are indeed changing.Americans are much more mobile: theychange jobs, switch careers, and move acrossthe country. The average American changescareers three to five times during his or herlifetime, and alters jobs 19 times. Thisremarkable transformation has contributedto the dynamism and vitality of theAmerican economy.

Unfortunately, due to our antiquatedand bureaucratic social security, health careand pension systems, this greater mobilitysometimes brings greater insecurity forindividuals. (A good example of this is theworker who is between jobs and has nohealth care because health care follows thejob rather than the individual.) Americansare becoming increasingly aware of thedeficiencies of a bureaucracy established for1950s America — when the job market wasmuch less fluid.

In Colorado, we have taken severalimportant steps toward an ownershipsociety. Changing economic times haveprompted us to evaluate how governmentcan give citizens the freedom to makedecisions concerning health care, retirement,pension and a college education.

This year, we established health-savingsaccounts (HSAs). HSAs offer both employ-ees and employers flexibility and freedom.Under an HSA, a high-deductible healthplan is coupled with a savings account to payfor qualified medical expenses that are notcovered by the insurance policy. Employeesinvest funds in the tax-free account formedical treatment and in CDs, money-market funds, mutual funds and otherinvestment vehicles.

Unlike similar tax-saving vehicles of thepast, outstanding balances at the end of theyear roll over to the next year. And, HSAsare highly portable: they follow the individ-ual who changes jobs or even moves toanother state. Private health accounts willhelp control soaring health-insurance costsfor employers while simultaneously empow-ering workers to make their own decisions.

In order to improve health care,Colorado has also developed the ConsumerDirected Attendant Support Program. Thisempowers Medicaid recipients withdisabilities to direct their own home-careservices. They hire and supervise their ownattendants. They set their own attendantschedules and determine what services theattendants provide. And at the end of theyear, individuals keep half of any unusedfunds. They can put these funds towardfuture medical expenses that improve theirquality of life (and they return the other halfto the state).

Consumers thus become more self-sufficient, gain a greater sense of personalresponsibility, and lead healthier lives. Weare hoping in the coming year to extend thispolicy to the developmentally disabled.

Colorado has also applied theownership philosophy to pension plans. Fordecades, Colorado state employees werelocked into a defined benefit retirement plandesigned in 1931. The plan offered littleflexibility and penalized short-term workers.In the present economic climate, the “onesize fits all” approach is no longer the appro-priate retirement formula. This year, Isigned legislation expanding defined contri-bution plan options to all new employeeshired on or after Jan. 1, 2006. Employeeswill have a choice of mutual funds in which

to invest their money. They will also be fullyvested from Day One. The plan is portableand transferable; it follows employees as theychange jobs and careers.

Last, but certainly not least, in May,Colorado became the first state in thecountry to send students to college withvouchers. Previously, state funds for tuitioncame in the form of block subsidies to ourpublic institutions of higher education. Wechanged the funding equation, splittingthose grants into thousands of individualvouchers that follow students to the institu-tions of their choice (including three privatecolleges). As a result, schools will nowcompete for student funds. The CollegeOpportunity Fund is an important steptoward making public institutions moreaccountable to students and taxpayers.

I am proud of our efforts in Colorado togive our citizens greater freedom and theability to plan for their future. Thesereforms have been long in coming, but theyare absolutely essential in our ever-changingeconomy. Fortunately, the tide is turningfrom an administrative state that dispensesentitlements to a streamlined, competitivesystem that emphasizes choice, free markets,and the active, educated participation ofindividual citizens.

Americans no longer look to govern-ment for economic security; rather, theylook to their portfolios. The Americanpeople are well aware that they can do a farbetter job than government at protectingtheir families’ interests.

— Bill Owens is governor of Colorado

Politics

Colorado governor empowers individualsFrom Entitlement to Ownership

Governor Bill Owens

Cou

rtesy

of G

over

nor

Ow

ens’

offi

ce


By Governor Bill Owens

Sen. John Kerry is the wrong man tolead America in the 21st century. His20-year Senate record and his numer-

ous vacillations on the campaign stumpreveal his true character: the MassachusettsDemocrat is an old-style liberal who changeshis tune according to convenience.

Mr. Kerry currently attempts to presenthimself as a budget-slashing, fiscal hawk:this is akin to Ted Kennedy running forpresident on a pro-life, pro-guns, pro-absti-nence platform. In fact, Mr. Kerry has beenone of the most liberal members of theSenate. He has voted for countless tax hikesand spending increases. He has opposedevery major effort to reform Social Securityand Medicare. Like many in the DemocraticParty, he supports Big Government.

However, unless major entitlementprograms are revamped and partiallyprivatized, the country is doomed to long-term structural deficits. Any serious short-term effort to control the budget deficit willrequire curtailing further non-defense dis-cretionary spending. In order to tackle theburgeoning national debt, it will be neces-sary to reform Social Security and Medicare— which together account for one-thirdof total federal expenditures. Mr. Kerrysimply lacks credibility on these bread-and-butter issues.

Moreover, his economic proposals willresult in unraveling the economic recovery.If he is elected, Mr. Kerry will be the firstprotectionist president since HerbertHoover. Although he voted for NAFTA, theDemocratic nominee says he “regrets” hisdecision and would now vote against it. Heregards U.S. Trade Representative RobertZoellick as a traitor for negotiating free-trade deals. Mr. Kerry vows to impose severeenvironmental standards and laborregulations on America’s trading partners.This is equivalent to erecting trade barriersthrough the back door. It will also severelyimpoverish the economies of developingnations — those we are supposedly trying tohelp. Erecting trade walls will hurt U.S.exports and job creation, as well asundermine the shaky global economy.

Mr. Kerry’s tax plan is another daggeraimed at the heart of the U.S. economy. Heproposes to raise the capital-gains tax ratefrom 15 percent to 20 percent; the dividendtax-rate from 15 percent to a high of 39.6percent; and the top income tax-rate from35 to 40 percent. By raising taxes, Mr. Kerrywill depress both the economic activity andthe entrepreneurial risk-taking that is vital toachieving a robust economy. He resorts tothe facile rhetoric of class warfare — theinvocation to “tax the rich.” This is attractive

to the Democratic base. However, it is also alethal mixture of populist demagoguery andbad economics. The result will be a less pros-perous and more stagnant America.

Nor will Mr. Kerry’s promise to raisetaxes on those making over $200,000 a yearbe sufficient to fund his lavish new spendingproposals — or, as he claims, to reduce theexisting budget deficit. Mr. Kerry’s wish listof new government programs, including hismassive health care plan, will total about $2trillion over ten years. Even by the Kerryteam’s own estimate, the candidate’s tax-hikeplan will bring in about $800 billion. Thus,if Mr. Kerry fulfills his new spending initia-tives, his presidency will add over $1 trillionto the national debt over ten years.

The only way for the Massachusettsliberal to prevent his plan from blowing thebudget sky-high will be to raise taxes on themiddle class. It is unlikely that he willhesitate to do this since he has done sorepeatedly during his Senate career. But abroad-based tax increase will almost certain-ly plunge the country into a seriousrecession, as it did in the early 1990s afterthe elder President George H.W. Bushagreed to boost taxes. Furthermore, this willoccur at a time when the United States needsa dynamic, surging economy to underwritethe global campaign against Islamic radical-


John Kerry is Yesterday’s LiberalyCover Story

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

Candidate lacks new ideas at home and abroad

Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., speaksat a campaign rally at the Philadelphia Art Museum in Philadelphia,July 27, 2004.

U.S. President George W. Bush speaks at an “Ask President Bush”event in Clive, Iowa, October 4, 2004.

Mar

io T

ama/

Get

ty Im

ages

AP

Phot

o/G

eral

d H

erbe

rt

ism. Mr. Kerry’s tax-and-spend policies willtherefore weaken our ability to win the waron terror.

Mr. Kerry’s archaic economic strategypales in comparison to President Bush’s tax-cutting, pro-growth and free-trade agenda.The President successfully bolstered theeconomy following the aftershocks of the9/11 attacks, corporate scandals and theburst of the high-tech bubble. His econom-ic record is impressive: over 1.7 million newjobs have been created this year. Thisamounts to the highest economic growthrate in nearly 20 years. Also, a record num-ber of Americans own homes. In contrast tothe Bush boom, Mr. Kerry offers more ofthe same failed, liberal policies of the past.

The same holds true of theMassachusetts senator’s foreign policy. Mr.Kerry insists that he can bring more alliesinto Iraq than the President: he vaguelypromises to “restore our alliances.” But theDemocrat is not specific regarding whichcountries he will be able to persuade to joinus. The governments of Russia, France andGermany have publicly professed that, evenif Mr. Kerry is elected, they will not sendtroops into Iraq. Paris, Berlin and Moscowdo not want to assist the United States inthis case — and never will. Hence, Mr.Kerry is either naïve or disingenuous whenhe claims he can get more of our European“allies” to participate in the war.

In fact, during a 1997 debate onCNN’s “Crossfire,” Mr. Kerry made the casefor launching a pre-emptive attack againstIraq without France and Russia. At the time,he argued that Paris and Moscow werecompromised by their business dealingswith Baghdad and could not be trusted totake action against Iraqi dictator SaddamHussein. “We know we can’t count on theFrench. We know we can’t count on theRussians,” Mr. Kerry said. “We know thatIraq is a danger to the United States,and we reserve the right to take pre-emptiveaction whenever we feel it’s in ournational interest.”

Mr. Kerry has been remarkably incon-sistent on the issue of Iraq. He voted for the2002 congressional resolution authorizingthe President to use military force; he thenvoted against the $87 billion bill providingaid for military equipment and reconstruc-tion. He did this after saying only monthsearlier that it would be “deeply irresponsi-ble” to send U.S. forces into war without thenecessary funds. Also, Mr. Kerry chastisedHoward Dean during the primaries forrefusing to admit that the world is safer

without Saddam in power. Yet, the senatorthen called President Bush’s decision toattack Iraq a “monumental mistake.” TheDemocrat even said that the President’s deci-sion was like “President Franklin Rooseveltinvading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.”

Furthermore, Mr. Kerry cannotadequately explain his decision to voteagainst the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Thatconflict supposedly had all the ingredientshe says are necessary to unleash U.S. militarypower: U.N. approval, a broad “internation-al” coalition and a clear exit strategy. Yet, hestill didn’t support it.

Clearly, Mr. Kerry is a shallow politicalopportunist. He has vacillated so often onthe central issue of our time. In fact, he hasplaced himself in a box: He argues both thatthe war in Iraq is a mistake and that it is not;he maintains at once that the war is vital toAmerican security and that it is a granddiversion in the war on terror. He does nothave the steadfast courage to successfullydefeat Islamic fascism.

Ultimately, his opposition to both Iraqwars reveals that Mr. Kerry remains aproduct of the 1960s anti-war left. Likemany post-Vietnam liberals, he believes thatAmerica is not a force for good in the world.Rather, its imperialist and militaristicinstincts need to be tethered to larger inter-national institutions, such as the UnitedNations and the International CriminalCourt. The Massachusetts Democrat mayclaim to be a born-again military hawk, hell-bent on smashing Islamic terrorists. But heremains a pacifist at heart.

Mr. Kerry’s core worldview was formedwhen he began to protest against theVietnam War. His subsequent Senate recordreflects this. He consistently sought armscontrol deals with the Soviets. He votedagainst every major missile program. He wasa leading critic of President Ronald Reagan’sefforts to roll back Marxist regimes inAfghanistan, Nicaragua and Grenada. Inshort, he was on the wrong side of almostevery major policy debate of the Cold War.

His judgments on the war on terror areequally erroneous. Mr. Kerry, along withmost Democrats and European elites,remains wedded to the old, pre-9/11 view ofthe world. They mistakenly maintain thatthe Islamic Jihadists who perpetrated the9/11 attacks are extremists engaged inessentially isolated acts of terrorism.Therefore, they insist that Osama bin Ladenand his al Qaeda killers can be defeated byusing the same tactics that governments useto deal with the IRA, violent Basque

separatists and Palestinian suicide bombers:tough law enforcement and tighterintelligence surveillance.

This approach may work withtraditional terrorist groups, but it is a recipefor disaster against Islamic radicalism. Thewar on terror is not simply a battle against alQaeda; it is a war against a global ideology inwhich disparate terrorist networks — fromChechnya to the Philippines, from theMiddle East to cities like London, Paris andHamburg — are united in their hatredof Western civilization. These violentideologues especially despise the West’sgreatest champion: the United States.

This global enemy requires a new,global response. For this reason, PresidentBush has sought to “transform” the MiddleEast. He understands that a prosperous anddemocratic Iraq will serve as a model forother peoples in the region who are sufferingunder autocratic misrule. Islamic despotismand corruption have given terrorists fertilebreeding grounds for their ideology of hate.By bringing pluralist democracy to theMiddle East, President Bush will drain theterrorist swamp at its source.

Revolutionary times require a revolu-tionary leader. The President has shown thathe can rise to the challenges before us.Under his tenure, two regimes have beenoverthrown, 50 million citizens have beenliberated from brutal dictatorships, the alQaeda network has been decimated, Libyahas relinquished its nuclear weapons pro-gram, Pakistan’s illicit proliferation networkhas been exposed, and two WMD-seekingstates (Saudi Arabia and Syria) have beeneffectively neutralized. This is an impressivescore card. President Bush has certainlyearned another four years in office.

Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, isyesterday’s man — the candidate of OldEurope. He is cautious and antiquated inboth his approach to foreign affairs anddomestic issues such as the economy, taxes,trade, Social Security and Medicare. He ischaracterized by a penchant for Gucci suitsand expensive haircuts, elitist arrogancedisguised in populist rhetoric, and an admi-ration for European welfare states and U.N-style multilateralism. These attributes renderhim a perfect candidate for president …of France. But in this campaign, he is thewrong man, at the wrong time, in thewrong place.

— Jeffrey T. Kuhner is the editor of The Ripon Forum and communications

director at The Ripon Society


In his windsurfing pronouncements onIraq, Sen. John Kerry has been anunsurpassed model of inconsistency;

within a few weeks, he has adopted almostevery possible stance towards that country.At the same time, by ending with a call forthe United States to start winding down itsIraqi commitment next year, he has showna strong underlying consistency: Mr. Kerryhas been opposed to almost any exercise ofU.S. military power since Vietnam.

His twists and turns are explained bythe fact that the U.S. electorate does notshare his basic instincts. Once aroused, as itwas by 9/11, the American public wants tosee its enemies crushed. Mr. Kerry there-fore agrees to crush them Mondays,Wednesdays and Fridays. But then he feelsa strong inward impulse to negotiate withthem Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.

If the Massachusetts senator werealone in feeling this dovish impulse, hemight exercise enough self-control to stickwith the hawks. But ever since he emergedfrom Vietnam as a unique blend of warhero and anti-war hero, there is a mon-strous regiment of peaceniks who share Mr.Kerry’s distrust of U.S. power andAmerican arrogance. He fears to lose theirgood opinion (and votes) by straying toofar into a calculated militarism. Thus, afterreporting for duty and saluting wildly, heeventually goes home to the anti-war camp.

If Mr. Kerry’s ambivalence wereconfined to Iraq and Vietnam, it might besurvivable. All bad things come to an end.We will eventually forget why Iraq is sovital - as we have largely forgotten Vietnam.But these conflicts will be replaced not by

universal peace and harmony, but by otherinternational crises and military challenges.And when this happens, Mr. Kerry’sgeneral outlook is not well-suited to pro-tecting America and Americans.

Examine the foreign policy outlinedon his official Web site. It states that we facethree great challenges: winning the global

war on terror; halting the spread of nuclear,biological and chemical weapons; andpromoting democracy, freedom and oppor-tunity around the world — “starting bywinning the peace in Iraq.” Mr. Kerry pro-poses to respond to these threats with “fourimperatives.” These are to launch and leada new era of alliances; to modernize the

Kerry’s Dovish DiplomacyDemocrat offers wrong approach to foreign policy


By John O’Sullivan

Medical ForumElection ForumBUSH vs. KERRYAMERICA VOTESTUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2

Presidential nominee John Kerry salutes during the Democratic National Convention at theFleetCenter in Boston, July 29, 2004.

AP

Phot

o/St

epha

n Sa

voia

“In his windsurfing pronouncements on Iraq, Sen. John Kerry has been an unsurpassed model of

inconsistency; within a few weeks, he has adopted almost every possible stance towards that

country. At the same time, by ending with a call for the United States to start winding down its

Iraqi commitment next year, he has shown a strong underlying consistency: Mr. Kerry has been

opposed to almost any exercise of U.S. military power since Vietnam.”


U.S. military in order to meet newthreats; to deploy diplomacy, intelligence,economics and “our values and ideas” aswell as military power against terrorism;and to free America from dependenceon foreign oil.

Well and good. As we shall see, thereare other threats — or “challenges” inKerry-speak — to the United States, butthese three are a fair selection. The mainproblem lies with the “imperatives.” Mostof the realistic policies on the list are alreadybeing carried out by the Bush administra-tion. It is modernizing the military,deploying intelligence and economics inthe war on terror and seeking to halt theproliferation of weapons of mass destruc-tion. These are not easy tasks; the presidentcannot guarantee success in them; and Iranand North Korea remain to be disarmed.But the Bush administration can reasonablyclaim that the Libyan decision to surrenderits nuclear program is one such success.Whatever else the liberation of Iraqachieved, it was at least a case of “pourencourager les autres” (“persuading others tocomply”).

Would Mr. Kerry have accomplishedas much? After all, having announced thathe wanted to start the promotion ofdemocracy around the world “by winningthe war in Iraq,” he seems to have decidedthat it is already lost. Insofar as he retains adesire to win the war, he proposes to do soby reducing the U.S. commitment andbringing in more troops from America’sallies (whom the Bush administration hasallegedly neglected). And he intends to dothis by seeking troops from those allies,namely France and Germany, that haveclearly signified unyielding opposition to

the war. Simultaneously, he insults thosenations that actually have troops in Iraq byreferring to them as “bribed” and“coerced.” As the French general famouslyremarked on the charge of the LightBrigade: “C’est magnifique mais ce n’est pasla guerre” (“It is magnificent, but itisn’t warfare”).

His other “imperatives” are equallyappealing — and equally hard to deliver.How, for instance, would he end ourdangerous dependence on foreign oil? By“tapping American ingenuity,” he says. Nooffense to American ingenuity but thisanswer resembles the sketch in which JohnCleese tells various distressed people thattheir problems can be readily solved withone million dollars. When asked how theycan get the million, Cleese replies that thatis a technicality outside his competence.Also, consider Mr. Kerry’s notion that wecan fight terrorism with our “values andideas”? The Bush administration is indeedpursuing this very strategy by promotingdemocracy.

But the European allies with whomMr. Kerry thinks we should harmonizeour policies regard this as naïve andcounter-productive. They prefer suchpolicies to be in the hands of internationalorganizations — which dilute our valuesand abandon our ideas when despoticregimes object to our convictions.

The European allies Mr. Kerry seeks tocourt value “stability” over freedom,democracy and opportunity. And one sus-pects, once off the podium, Mr. Kerryagrees with them. For there is a secondunderlying consistency in Mr. Kerry’s post-Vietnam political career: namely, his strongsupport for post-Cold War multilateralism.

When he promises to “launch and leada new era of alliances,” he is not proposinga revival of NATO or ANZUS. Theyrepresent an old era of alliances thatmagnified U.S. power. The new world ofthe International Criminal Court, theKyoto Treaty, customary international law,NGOs and international civil society is onethat would restrain American power andnational sovereignty by a network ofinternational rules — while harnessing thatpower toward global humanitarian inter-vention. It is a world honed in Paris,Brussels and Berlin where nationalsovereignty and military solutions to prob-lems such as WMD proliferation areregarded as distinctly vieux jeu (old hat).(There must be some reason why I keepcoming up with these French phrases.)

Mr. Kerry resembles his diplomatfather who distrusted American ethno-cen-trism and valued restraining a headstrongnation by hedging it into powerfulalliances. If elected, Mr. Kerry would cajolethe United States into subordinating itspursuit of the national interest to thesetrans-national “imperatives.” However,once the voters sensed the direction of hispolicy — and in particular, once they wit-nessed the sacrifice of some importantAmerican interest — they would complainloudly.

Mr. Kerry’s inconsistency would thencome to our rescue. It is, of course, a thinstraw on which to rely for safety in adangerous world.

— John O’Sullivan iseditor-at-large of National Review

and editor-in-chief of The National Interest

“Ever since he emerged from Vietnam as a unique blend of war hero

and anti-war hero, there is a monstrous regiment of peaceniks who

share Mr. Kerry’s distrust of U.S. power and American arrogance.

He fears to lose their good opinion (and votes) by straying too far

into a calculated militarism. Thus, after reporting for duty and

saluting wildly, he eventually goes home to the anti-war camp.”

Sen. John Kerry is seeking to completelytransform the U.S. health care system.The ostensible purpose is to insure two-

thirds of the estimated 44 million peoplewho lack health insurance at any one time.Yet his proposed changes are far more radicalthan even he has indicated. And most peoplewill be unable to remain in the private healthplan they have today.

If Mr. Kerry is successful, millions ofmiddle-income families will be forced to relyon Medicaid, the federal-state healthprogram for the poor. Millions morewill get their insurance through a system of“managed competition” — a programsimilar to the one Hillary Clinton proposedmore than a decade ago. The price tag forthese changes will likely reach in excess of $1trillion over ten years.

A key difference from the Clinton planof years ago is that there are no mandates.Instead, Mr. Kerry will offer economicincentives to try to induce people tovoluntarily get insured.

However, very little of the spending willactually go to individuals. About 90 percentof the funds will go to state governments,employers and insurance companies. Thus,people are supposed to get derivative benefitsfrom checks written to others.

For example, if the states expandeligibility and increase enrollment, thefederal government will assume the state’scost of insuring Medicaid children. Thefederal government will also pay the bulk ofthe cost of catastrophic health expenses foremployers who offer insurance to all employ-ees and cover at least one-half of the cost.

For those who are covered by the systemof “managed competition,” additionalsubsidies will be given for small businessesthat insure low-income employees, forworkers between jobs, and for people age 55to 64. There will also be a limit on howmuch insurance can cost (as a percentof family income) for everyone else whoindividually enrolls.

How well will all of this work? Morethan half the money in the Kerry plan will bespent expanding Medicaid and the S-CHIPprogram (for low-income children).However, as the public sector expands, the

private sector will surely contract. Even Mr.Kerry assumes that for every ten people whosign up, three people will lose privateinsurance; and it could be much worse.Studies in the 1990s found that everyadditional dollar spent on Medicaid led to areduction in private insurance of 50 to 75cents. More recent evidence suggests thatprivate sector crowd out is approaching one-to-one: each new Medicaid enrollee is offsetby one less person with private insurance.

Moreover, most of the private sectorsubsidies will go to people who are alreadyinsured; and employers get their subsidieseven if they fail to insure a single additionalemployee. In the final analysis, it is entirelypossible to spend $1 trillion and achieve noreduction in the uninsured! Quality of carewill also suffer under the Kerry proposal.People who go from employer plans toMedicaid will have fewer choices of doctors,longer waits for care and inevitable healthcare rationing.

Those who join the system of “managedcompetition” will experience a differentproblem: health plans will contain perverseincentives that will result in providing in

excess to the healthy and insufficiently to thesick. But the community-rated premiumscharged will bear no relation to actual healthcare costs. Healthy enrollees will overpay;high cost enrollees will underpay. Healthplans will contain strong incentives toprovide more services to profitable, healthyenrollees (in order to attract more of them)and fewer services to unprofitable, sickenrollees (in order to attract fewer of them).

Then there are the most importantpolitical questions: How much will the planreally cost? And who will really pay for it?Counting the first full year in operation, andestimating only the savings Mr. Kerry claimsthat appear to be possible, the actual cost ofthe plan will be in excess of $1 trillion.This is almost $1,000 per year for everyhousehold in America and more than threetimes the new revenue Mr. Kerry hopes toget from raising the taxes of the “rich.”However, even this estimate may be low.People will face perverse incentives to over-insure and over-consume. For example,faced with virtually no out-of-pocket costs,the 26 million new enrollees in Medicaidwill have no reason to show restraint. Thebills all go to someone else.

Whatever the cost, the plan will almostcertainly lead to a new round of health careinflation. Federal spending alone willincrease by more than $100 billion a year.But since there will be no increase in supply,the bulk of this new spending will lead tohigher prices rather than more health care.

A major problem with the currentsystem is that tax subsidies for healthinsurance are arbitrary and unfair. Butrather than creating a fairer system that treatsequals equally, Mr. Kerry seeks to institutenew subsidies that will make the system evenmore arbitrary. People at the same incomelevel will receive vastly different subsidiesdepending on their age, where they workand how they obtain insurance. Thus, ratherthan rectifying the current deficiencies in thehealth care system, Mr. Kerry’s plan willaugment existing ills.

— John C. Goodman is presidentof the National Center for

Policy Analysis in Dallas, Texas

Candidate’s health plan is expensive and ineffectiveCosts of Kerry-Care


By John C. Goodman




Democratic Minority Leader TomDaschle’s defense of his own seat inthe Senate should have been a cake-

walk. The South Dakota Democrat’srecord of obstructing legislation in theSenate, however, has succeeded in trans-forming a coronation into a foot race.Recent polls among likely South Dakotavoters indicate that there is a statistical deadheat between Mr. Daschle and hisRepublican challenger, former U.S. Rep.John Thune. It appears that the Bushadministration’s chief nemesis may soon beout of a job.

From the moment President GeorgeW. Bush took the oath of office, Mr.Daschle positioned himself as the primaryarchitect of Democratic opposition in theSenate. In doing so, he inadvertentlybecame the poster child for Democraticpolitical defeat. In the wake of 9/11 andthe subsequent economic recession, Mr.Daschle repeatedly frustrated Republicanattempts to pass significant legislation.Seeking to expand the Democrats’ razor-thin majority in the Senate, Mr. Daschleattempted to depict the Republicans as pre-siding over a “Do-Nothing Congress” while— at the same time — leading a campaignto block nearly all of their initiatives. Buthis legislative war of attrition failed. The2002 election repudiated Mr. Daschle’sagenda as Republicans regained control ofthe Senate.

Stubborn in defeat, Mr. Daschle onlyintensified his efforts to block theRepublican agenda following the midtermelections. Several key pieces of legislationdied as a result of these stalling techniques.In fact, Mr. Thune — among others — hastaken to referring to the Senate chamber as“Daschle’s Dead Zone,” a political grave-yard where great ideas go to die. In astrange way, Mr. Daschle has become theSenate’s Grim Reaper, using his scythe (fili-buster power) to mow down a Republicanagenda that received a firm mandate fromthe American people and majorities in boththe House and Senate.

The widely condemned filibustering ofBush judicial nominees has also been the

handiwork of Mr. Daschle. Despite statingin 1999 that he finds it “simply bafflingthat a senator would vote against even vot-ing on a judicial nomination,” Mr. Daschlehas led the charge to deny the Senate’s rightto an up-or-down vote. This has not onlycreated several vacancies in our judicial sys-tem, but has set a dangerous precedent thatpromises to politicize the federal bench foryears to come.

Mr. Daschle also uses his filibusterpower to thwart the will of the majority ofsenators by preventing votes on bills thathave enough support to become law. At hismost creative, Mr. Daschle adds extraneousamendments to popular bills in order toprohibit their passage. These tactics haveprevented much-needed bankruptcyreform, Head Start reform, the repeal of themarriage penalty and death tax, and even abill banning the burning and desecration ofthe American flag. Pillars of PresidentBush’s “ownership society,” such as SocialSecurity reform and extending tax cuts,have also died in the Senate due to Mr.Daschle’s opposition.

Unfortunately for Mr. Daschle, hisultra-liberal voting record and obstruction-ist tactics, which are hard to reconcile withhis self-styled populist rhetoric, are becom-ing known to South Dakota voters. As aresult, Mr. Daschle’s polling numbers areplummeting.

In an interview with The Ripon Forum,Mr. Thune said, “Daschle has become theface of obstruction in the United StatesSenate.” He rightly maintains that the sen-ator appears to be more at home with liber-al Democrats than Red State SouthDakotans. Mr. Thune claims that onalmost every issue, “whether it is judicialnominations, energy policy, medical mal-practice, litigation reform, or tax relief …legislation is stalled in the United StatesSenate because of Mr. Daschle’s strategyof playing the block and blame game.”

Mr. Daschle’s obstruction of a compre-hensive energy bill has been an especiallybitter pill for South Dakotans to swallow.The bill’s ethanol provision, which Mr.Thune supports as a “holy grail for the

ethanol industry,” would double produc-tion of the fuel additive and reduce toxicfuel emissions. The provision would alsoallow America to lessen its dependence onforeign oil. South Dakota is a heavily agri-cultural state and the nation’s 5th largestproducer of the corn-based ethanol fueladditive. South Dakotan farmers werebanking on a surge in corn prices and aguaranteed market for their product. Bykilling the energy bill, Mr. Daschle dealt ablow to the backbone of the SouthDakotan economy that will unlikely be for-gotten in November.

By repeatedly exposing the Democrat’sobstructionist record and presenting apositive vision of responsible governmentfor South Dakota, Mr. Thune hassucceeded in significantly eroding Mr.Daschle’s popularity. Despite a deluge ofout-of-state money from Mr. Daschle’sWashington backers, the GOP challengerhas closed the gap. A recent poll shows Mr.Thune leading his opponent by 3 percent-age points — despite the fact that Mr.Daschle will spend approximately$18 million by campaign’s end.

Mr. Daschle’s tenacious politicalobstruction has come at a lofty price. If heloses his job to Mr. Thune, it will be a losshard fought for and well-earned.

— Stephen F. Manfredi is the policyresearch director at The Ripon Society

By Stephen F. Manfredi

Thune has an opportunity for upsetDefeating Daschle

Visit our Web site forinformation and the

latest news about theRipon Society.

www.riponsoc.org

On the forefront ofRepublican politics

and ideas

There is little likelihood that onNovember 2nd Democrats will erodethe Republican majority in the House

or that they will retake the Senate. There arejust not enough competitive House racesthis year that could put the Democrats any-where near the 218 seats they need to oustthe GOP from power. In the Senate, theodds are against the Democrats who maylose two, three or possibly four seats in themore conservative South.

The Democrats’ congressional chanceslooked more promising this summer whenthe economic recovery seemed tenuous, ter-rorist insurgents re-ignited the Iraq war,President George W. Bush’s poll numberswere falling and John Kerry‘s campaign hadmomentum. Very skillful spinmeisters fore-saw improved prospects in the House andSenate for the Democrats; newspaper andmagazine articles predicted a Democraticcomeback on Capitol Hill.

In August, however, the political envi-ronment began to turn in the Republicans’favor. Mr. Kerry was assaulted for his con-tradictory positions on the Iraq war and theveracity of his Vietnam exploits. The publicbecame increasingly suspicious of his char-

acter and of his judgment on national secu-rity and terrorism. In contrast, Mr. Bush’sjob approval ratings rose once news brokethat the unemployment rate had shrunkand jobs were becoming more plentiful.

This is therefore not an environmentin which the party out of power has muchof a chance to make a comeback.

Of course, House Democrats did nothave many advantages to begin with. Butduring the summer they incurred a series ofsetbacks. For example, Louisiana Rep.Rodney Alexander fled his party and joinedthe Republicans. In Florida’s 22nd District,Democrat Jim Stork, who sought to oustRepublican Rep. Clay Shaw, bowed outearly, citing ill-health. Democrats thoughtthey had a chance of defeating Florida Rep.Katherine Harris, only to see their chancesdiminished with the defeat in the party pri-mary of their star recruit, ChristineJennings.

“To have any chance of retakingthe House, Democrats still need a waveto develop,” election analyst StuartRothenberg wrote in September in RollCall. “But a wave seems less likelytoday than it did four weeks ago, and

honest Democrats are nolonger able to talkseriously about 218 seats.”

In the Republican-controlled Senate, though,Democrats did seem to havean opportunity to erodethe GOP majority. TheDemocrats were certain thatthey could gain an openRepublican seat in Illinois;they had a good chanceof winning GOP seatsin Alaska, Colorado andOklahoma; and it appearedthat they could hold on to anopen Democratic seat inNorth Carolina.

But a closer examina-tion of the Senate races sug-gests that the Republicanshave the advantage.

“Our current assessment of the fightfor the Senate puts the Republicans back inthe driver’s seat,” states the RothenbergPolitical Report. “The Democratic boomletof July has faded a bit (including Sen. JohnKerry’s advantage in the presidential con-test), making it harder to envision theDemocrats taking Senate control.”

The story lies in the numbers: OnNovember 2nd, 34 Senate seats are at stake;15 seats are Republican, but 19 seats areheld by the Democrats.

The Democrats’ big problem this yearis that out of the eight open seats due forretirements, five are Democratic seats in theSouth. These are in Georgia, SouthCarolina, Florida, Louisiana and NorthCarolina. The South, however, is a regionwhere Republicans have a habit of winning.

Two out of three Republican openSenate seats — Colorado and Oklahoma —are in the West where Republicans are dom-inant.

In other words, Democrats face anuphill battle: there are many open and vul-nerable Democratic seats. Also, theDemocrats have a weak presidential nomi-nee who is running behind Mr. Bush in allthe Southern and Western plains states.

No one doubts that the Republicanswill win Democratic Sen. Zell Miller’s seatin Georgia now that he is retiring. Also, it isclear that the Democrats will gain Sen.Peter Fitzgerald’s open Republican seat inIllinois. But in these cases there will be nonet gain for either party.

So that leaves six open seats and a fewother close contests which will decide thiselection. Here is my assessment of thesepivotal Senate races:

SOUTH CAROLINA: From thebeginning, the pundits have vastlyoverrated the Democrats’ chances.The Democratic candidate, StateSuperintendent of Education InezTennenbaum, has run an inept campaign:she recently fired her ad consultants in thehope of alleviating her woes. However,since winning the Republican nomination,Former Rep. Jim DeMint has surged pasther in the polls. This is certain to be a GOPgain.

FLORIDA: Former Housing andUrban Development Secretary MelMartinez’s victory over former Rep. BillMcCollum in the Republican primary givesthe GOP its best opportunity to win retir-ing Democratic Sen. Bob Graham’s seat.Mr. Martinez’s Democratic opponent, for-

Democrats are unlikelyto retake Congress

Key Races to Watch

U.S. Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) (Right) debates with hischallenger, Republican U.S. senatorial candidate and formerRepresentative John Thune (R-SD) (Left) on NBC’s ‘Meet thePress’ September 19, 2004. Their race is believed to beone of the tightest races in the upcoming general elections.

Phot

o by

Ale

x W

ong/

Get

ty Im

ages


By Donald Lambro



mer state Education Commissioner BettyCastor, is not a pushover; she demolishedher rivals in the Democratic primary. ButMr. Martinez, a Cuban immigrant with starqualities, will draw considerable supportfrom Florida’s large Hispanic community.He has the momentum in this race.

NORTH CAROLINA: Democratshave been hopeful for months that formerClinton Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles, willwin this seat. In fact, he has been leading inthe early polls. But the GOP nominee,Richard Burr, has a $6.6 million war chest.President Bush is expected to carry NorthCarolina easily. Yet, the race for this partic-ular seat remains difficult to predict.

LOUISIANA: Republican CongressmanDavid Vitter has been running ahead con-sistently in all of the open primary polls.However, this race will be decided in theDec. 4 runoff. Louisiana’s unique electionlaw stipulates that Election Day is an“open” primary. Should no candidatereceive 50 percent of the vote on Nov. 2,the top two vote-getters (regardless of partyaffiliation) participate in a runoff onSaturday, Dec. 4. No Republican Senatecandidate in this state has yet been able tosurmount such an election hurdle. But Mr.Vitter is running a strong campaign: hepolls 42 percent or more against threeweaker Democratic opponents whose com-bined strength do not exceed his total num-

bers. Still, this one too is difficult to pre-dict.

COLORADO: Republican business-man Peter Coors, a political novice, is run-ning against state Attorney General KenSalazar, a talented Democratic politicianwho has won statewide before. But Mr.Coors is a quick learner. As heir to theCoors beer fortune, he does not lack fund-ing. Post-primary polls indicate that Mr.Coors is leading. However, recent surveyspresent the contest as a virtual dead heat.President Bush’s coattails should help. Thisone is a tossup; but Mr. Coors is likely tosucceed.

OKLAHOMA: This is a knock down,drag out battle between Democratic Rep.Brad Carson, an economic populist andsocial liberal, and former RepublicanCongressman Tom Coburn, a traditionalconservative. The Oklahoman reported thatMr. Coburn was leading: 46 percent to 37percent. Most analysts consider this race tobe a tossup; however, in a state thatPresident Bush will win easily, Mr. Coburnhas the advantage.

ALASKA: This contest is tighter thanthe skin on a kayak. Republican Sen. LisaMurkowski is still fighting charges of nepo-tism after her father, Gov. FrankMurkowski, named her to complete theremainder of his term in the U.S. Senate.She is opposed by former Democratic Gov.

Tony Knowles who has won statewidetwice, though narrowly. Polls show that therace is dead even. However, Alaska is aRepublican stronghold and President Bushshould sweep the state. Surprisingly, Ms.Murkowski is proving to be a far moreappealing campaigner. This race is a tossup,but Ms. Murkowski has the advantage.

SOUTH DAKOTA: Senate MinorityLeader Tom Daschle, who spent the lastfour years bashing President Bush on Iraq,now sings a different tune. His ads praisePresident Bush for his leadership. Mr.Daschle emphasizes his opposition to gunliability laws and his role in voting to bringthe partial-birth abortion ban for approval.In a state where Republicans heavilyoutnumber Democrats, Mr. Daschle isrunning just a few points ahead of formerRepublican Rep. John Thune. A strongBush tide could end Mr. Daschle’sSenate career. This contest is also difficultto predict.

Hence, if current trends continue, itwill be very difficult for the Democrats tocapture control of Congress, as they hadhoped. This is increasingly looking like agood Republican year.

— Donald Lambro is a nationallysyndicated columnist and chief politicalcorrespondent for The Washington Times

Illus

tratio

n by

Joh

n Bo

one

South Carolina Jim DeMint (R) vs. Inez Tennenbaum (D)North Carolina Richard Burr (R) vs. Erskine Bowles (D)Florida Mel Martinez (R) vs. Betty Castor (D)Louisiana David Vitter (R) vs. Chris John (D),

John Kennedy (D), Arthur Morrell (D)Colorado Peter Coors (R) vs. Ken Salazar (D)Oklahoma Tom Coburn (R) vs. Brad Carson (D)Alaska Lisa Murkowski (R) vs. Tony Knowles (D)South Dakota John Thune (R) vs. Tom Daschle (D)

OK

CO

SC

NC

FL

LA

AKSD



As chairman of the National RepublicanCongressional Committee, I amincreasingly more bullish about what

2004 holds for congressional Republicans.My goal is to return our current majority of228 in the U.S. House of Representatives.What we are about to see is the fruits of twoyears’ labor consisting of hard work, plan-ning, fund-raising and campaigning.

It seems that only yesterday myDemocrat counterparts were talking abouttaking back the House. They claimed anational wind was at their back that wouldcarry them back into leadership. What adifference a few weeks makes — along witha perfectly executed convention and aPresident who has proved his mettle.

The situation in which we now findourselves is one where the Democrats are ata profound disadvantage: all politicalwatchers give the Democrats no chance oftaking back the House. There are simplynot enough seats for them to realisticallywin. Non-partisan political analyst,Charlie Cook, rates seats in the followingcategories: tossups, lean-Republican orlean-Democrat. If Democrats were to winevery single lean-Democrat seat, all theRepublican and Democrat held tossupseats, and then proceed to win the twoseats in Texas where due to redistrictingincumbent House members are pittedagainst each other, they would still be sevenseats short of the majority. Or as Mr. Cookputs it, “There’s not a snowball’s chance inhell” that the Democrats will take backthe House.

When one looks at this election year’slandscape and all that has happened sincethe last election, it is obvious whyRepublicans hold the high ground. I oftenrefer to the “three c’s” as the keys to oursuccess. We recruited strong candidates,made sure those candidates had enoughcash to get their message out and that theyhad a convincing case to present to voters.

In this cycle, there are 36 open seats.Several are held by retiring Republicans andwill be battlegrounds. Popular KingCounty Sheriff Dave Reichert (WA-08)won his primary and will help us hold thisseat. And Erie County Comptroller, Nancy

Naples (NY-27), is notorious for her abilityto attract crossover Democrat votes.

Simultaneously, we will be on theoffensive in districts held by Democrats.Geoff Davis (KY-04) almost defeatedincumbent Democrat Ken Lucas in2002; he has returned to finish where heleft off as Mr. Lucas decided to retire. Inthe Republican-leaning 7th District ofLouisiana, Dr. Charles Boustany is runninga strong campaign as well.

In addition to open seats, there arequite a few Democrats representing Bushdistricts that seem ripe for the picking.Vice President Dick Cheney has cam-paigned for Stan Thompson (IA-03), MikeSodrel (IN-09) and Kris Kobach (KS-03).Larry Diedrich (SD-al) lost by one point inthe June special election after closing an ini-tial 30-point gap. Now, he is in a dead heatwith Democrat Stephanie Herseth. BevKilmer (FL-02) has drawn the support ofSpeaker J. Dennis Hastert and first ladyLaura Bush. And 2002 nominee JohnSwallow (UT-02) is in better shape to takeon Democrat Jim Matheson afterholding him to only 49 percent the lasttime around.

Many of these races are promising, butmy first priority is to my incumbents.Fortunately, our incumbents in tough seatshave worked hard to make sure that theyare prepared for their races. Five of theseven most vulnerable incumbentsended the second quarter of 2004 withover $1 million in their war chests.Thus, they maintain an average of two-and-one-half to one cash advantage overtheir challengers.

The cash situation this cycle isdifferent than anything we have ever had todeal with because it is the first cycle inwhich we have operated under the newconstraints of the campaign finance law.The new law makes it extremely difficult toraise money. Large “soft money” donationsare illegal: it is therefore twice as hard toraise half the money we once did. We havemade the necessary changes to functionunder this law. We are operating a smallerstaff than in 2002; we have streamlinedoperations; and we have lowered our over-

head. In addition, we redirected our effortsto find small money donors. Using thesetechniques, the NRCC was able to set anall-time fund-raising record in 2003; theNRCC has been able to raise $58.8 millionwithin the first eight months of 2004.

Finally, if we have the best candidatesand the most cash, but not the rightmessage, voters will not respond. TheRepublican-led Congress has given ourincumbents and challengers a strong caseon which to run. We added a prescriptiondrug benefit to Medicare and we passed theBush tax cuts that ensure economic successfor the near and distant future. We arewinning the war on terror and we increasededucation funding to record levels.

On the whole, our opportunitiesabound. In the last year-and-a-half, Reps.Rodney Alexander of Louisiana and RalphHall of Texas, both conservativeDemocrats, have switched parties. TheTexas redistricting map provides severalmore openings. My goal is to return aRepublican Congress to work with thePresident to finish the job we have begun.Our prospects are better than ever. It is awonderful time to be Republican.

— Rep. Tom Reynolds is a New YorkRepublican and chairman of the National

Republican Congressional Committee

Why Republicans will retain House majorityGOP Poised for Victory

U.S. Rep. Tom Reynolds

Cou

rtesy

of R

ep. R

eyno

lds’

offi

ce

By U.S. Representative Tom Reynolds


Recently, my Republican colleaguesand I celebrated our ten-year anniver-sary as the majority in the United

States House of Representatives. Havingserved in the minority for more than twodecades, I much prefer being in themajority because we have been able to moveforward our vision for a better and brighterAmerica.

The record shows that our policieswork. Since we took control of the House,the homeownership rate has increased, theviolent crime rate has decreased, medianhousehold income has increased, thepoverty rate has decreased, charitable givinghas increased, interest rates have decreased,the number of people earning collegedegrees has increased, and the bankruptcyrate has decreased.

As you know, I serve as theChairman of the House AppropriationsSubcommittee on Labor, Health andHuman Services, and Education. TheLabor, Health and Human Services, andEducation bill is the largest domesticspending bill; it provides funds to over 500discretionary programs. Every program inthis bill affects the lives of theAmerican people. I like to call it the bill ofhope. It gives hope to every child seekinga good education, hope to everyonesearching for a good job, and hope to the illseeking a cure.

Under Republican leadership, fundingfor the Department of Education has morethan doubled from $23 billion in FY 1996to $55.7 billion in FY 2004. Federal PellGrant funding, which provides vitalassistance to needy college students, hasincreased considerably from $4.9 billion inFY 1996 to $12 billion in FY 2004. In FY1996, the maximum student award was$2,470; today, it is $4,050.

This dramatic increase in funding hasbeen coupled with an overhaul of thenation’s education system. The mostimportant change brought about bythe No Child Left Behind Act is theinsistence that every student, from third toeighth grade, be tested in math andscience. Education reform is based onsimple, but effective concepts: published

reports and greater accountability fosterbetter school performance.

Health care is a critical part of anation’s economic development. To assistin protecting the health of all Americansand providing essential human services, thebudget of the Department of Health andHuman Services has more than doubledfrom $28.9 billion in FY 1996 to $62billion in FY 2004. Federal outlays for theNational Institutes of Health alone haverisen from $11.9 billion in FY 1996 to$27.9 billion in FY 2004.

As a result of our commitment toNIH, our citizens are living longer andbetter lives. Life expectancy at birth wasonly 47 years in 1900; by 2000, it wasalmost 77 years. NIH research hascontributed to the decrease in deaths fromcancer, heart disease, and AIDS. And thereis more to come: the NIH completed theHuman Genome Project two years ahead ofschedule and for a cost substantially lessthan original estimates. The sequencing ofthe human genome set a new course fordeveloping ways to diagnose and treatdiseases like cancer, Parkinson’s disease andAlzheimer’s disease, as well as rare diseases.

One of the most historic pieces of leg-islation passed by the Republican Congressis the prescription-drug bill. For the firsttime since 1965, a massive new entitlementprogram has been created, providing seniorcitizens with comprehensive coverage forprescription drugs. This measure helps theelderly to combat the high cost of medica-tion. The bill is also an attempt to revampand modernize Medicare. The centerpieceof this reform effort is the creation of tax-free Health Savings Accounts. HSAs willenable Americans to have more control overtheir health care; these accounts empowercitizens by giving them more choice andflexibility in deciding the right kind ofinsurance that they need.

Another major policy innovationspearheaded by the Republicans has beenPresident George W. Bush’s call to confrontthe major health crisis of our age: AIDS.President Bush has proposed $15 billionover 5 years — the largest effort in historyto tackle this global pandemic. The

President’s initiative dwarfs the fundinglevel of any other Western country.Moreover, it is a bold assertion of policythat the United States will lead the fightagainst AIDS.

Among the GOP’s most significantaccomplishments is the passage of welfarereform. We reformed this outdated andailing program; we overhauled the nation’sfailed welfare system and placed work at itsforefront. Our tenacity in enacting thislegislation has been vindicated by theremarkable results: welfare rolls have beencut in half, millions are finding jobsthrough workfare and there is greaterflexibility for state governments in address-ing chronic poverty.

As a majority, we have accomplished somuch. But much remains to be done. I amconfident that with a Republican majorityin Congress, we will continue to exceedthe public’s expectations and to expandopportunities for all Americans.

— Rep. Ralph Regula is anOhio Republican and vice chairman

of the House Appropriations Committee

Victories of the GOP CongressRepublican Accomplishments

U.S. Rep. Ralph Regula

Cou

rtesy

of R

ep. R

egul

a’s

offic

e

Election Forum

By U.S. Representative Ralph Regula

BUSH vs. KERRYAMERICA VOTESTUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2

Education, health care, infrastructure:these bread-and-butter issues are justtoo important to the 2004 electorate to

be ignored by candidates for chief execu-tive. The candidates have to explain howtheir proposals will help families obtainquality education, affordable health care,and adequate transportation and utilityservices at the lowest-possible price. So thecandidates are putting a tremendousamount of energy and money into debatingthese issues.

I am not hereby referring to thenational contest between President GeorgeW. Bush and Sen. John Kerry. Rather, myfocus is on those other races for chief exec-utive: in November, 11 elections for gover-nor are being held in states stretching fromWashington and Montana to NorthCarolina and New England. Republicanscame into the 2004 cycle occupying 28 ofthe 50 top spots in state government — andwith a reasonable chance of holding, if notexpanding, their majority. Developmentsthrough mid-September appear only toimprove the GOP’s opportunities in anumber of key states.

The 2001-03 period was not a goodone for incumbent governors and theirpolitical parties. Governors found it diffi-cult to win re-election or to leave theiroffice to favored successors. They werehaunted by economic recession, budgetgaps and tax increases. Consequently, can-didates of both parties suffered:Republicans relinquished governorships insuch states as Illinois, Wisconsin,Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona,Tennessee, Louisiana, and Virginia;Democrats lost the top jobs in Maryland,Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama,Mississippi, Vermont, New Hampshire,Kentucky, and California. On balance,Republicans won more governorships thanthey lost. However, the outcome was some-what less impressive once we consider thesize and population of the states that theRepublican Party could not retain: theGOP lost control of large swing states inthe Midwest and Mid-Atlantic; on theother hand, they defeated Democrats most-ly in smaller states in the Northeast and in

the South (except for California whoseDemocratic governor lost his seat in a recallelection).

Among the 11 states with gubernatori-al races that coincide with presidential ones(including New Hampshire and Vermontbecause they have two-year terms) six cur-rently have Democratic governors and fivehave Republican ones. The three biggestprizes, in terms of population, are NorthCarolina, Missouri and Indiana. All areheld by Democrats.

Currently, Democrat prospects atobtaining a majority of governorships donot appear good. The worst-case scenariofor Republicans is probably either to comeout even or perhaps to suffer a net loss ofone seat. However, it is more likely that theGOP will actually add one or twogovernorships. If this forecast materializesand one combines these results with the re-election of the President, the retention of amajority in the Republican Congress, andthe current slight edge in state legislativeseats, the electorate will have affirmed theGOP’s rise to majority status.

Here are a few points to rememberabout each of the 2004 contests:

DELAWARE: Gov. Ruth Ann Minneris perhaps the safest Democratic incumbentin the country. Former Judge Bill Leeclinched the Republican nomination inSeptember (he also ran for governor in2000). Ms. Minner doesn’t have the obvi-ous vulnerabilities of some of her peers.Also, the underlying trends in Delaware donot offer advantages to the GOP. At least inthis small state, Mr. Lee’s lack of compara-ble financial resources is not fatal.Nonetheless, he is unlikely to prevail.

INDIANA: Mitch Daniels, PresidentBush’s former budget director, is leadingDemocratic Gov. Joe Kernan both in thepolls and in momentum. Mr. Kernan, theelected lieutenant governor who assumedthe top job in 2003 upon the death of Gov.Frank O’Bannon, has not generated muchenthusiasm in his campaign. Indiana haslong been a state where strong Republicanperformance at the top of the ticket has notroutinely resulted in competitive races forgovernor. However, 2004 appears to be dif-

ferent. Mr. Daniels has found his voice onboth fiscal and cultural issues. In contrast,Mr. Kernan is running ads featuring hisbarber.

MISSOURI: Democratic Gov. BobHolden had a disastrous first term.Unfortunately for Republicans, MissouriDemocrats came to that very conclusion. Inan August primary, they ousted Mr. Holdenfrom power and favored State AuditorClaire McCaskill. Ms. McCaskill is a bettercandidate to run against Republican MattBlunt, the secretary of state and sonof House Majority Whip Roy Blunt. Ms.McCaskill is running as a centrist and a foeof wasteful spending. Mr. Blunt has chal-lenged her ineffectiveness at enacting auditrecommendations. He has also sought toseparate her views on crime from theMissouri mainstream. The race appears tobe extremely close — but Mr. Blunt willbenefit if President Bush’s post-conventionsurge in this prototypically swing stateproves to be lasting.

MONTANA: Republican Gov. JudyMartz chose to retire rather than face a testyelectorate. Yet, GOP nominee and secretaryof state Bob Brown has not entirely suc-ceeded in distinguishing himself from her.The Democratic nominee is BrianSchweitzer, a former Senate candidate.Early polls indicate that he leads Mr. Brownby double digits. Is this an opportunity fora Democratic pick-up? Perhaps this willoccur — despite the likelihood that theMontana electorate will heavily favorPresident Bush. Mr. Schweitzer is trying tosound at least moderate on fiscal issues. Mr.Brown seeks to draw a clear distinctionfrom his opponent by supporting spendingcaps and property-tax cuts.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: RepublicanGov. Craig Benson is in his first term and,to put it charitably, he is not popularamong much of the political establishment.In September, voters chose John Lynch, abusinessman and former trustee of theUniversity of New Hampshire, as theDemocratic candidate. He has favored atobacco-tax increase to address school-funding concerns; Mr. Benson steadfastlyopposes new taxes. Mr. Lynch hopes that

GOP will affirm majority statusGubernatorial Races in November


By John Hood



ethical transgressions by some of the gover-nor’s appointees will prove to be a decisiveissue. Yet, Mr. Benson retains a solid rap-port with average voters.

NORTH CAROLINA: Of the threemost populous states with gubernatorialelections, the least worrisome forDemocrats is in the Tar Heel State — butthis does not mean they are not nervous.Gov. Mike Easley enjoys a fund-raisingadvantage over Republican nominee PatrickBallantine, the former state Senate minori-ty leader. However, Mr. Easley’s series ofbillion-dollar tax hikes and NorthCarolina’s lackluster economic performancehave given Mr. Ballantine a real opening. Inads targeted to fiscally conservative listenersof talk radio, Mr. Easley’s latest tactic is toimply that Mr. Ballantine will raise taxes by$1.5 billion. Will such disinformation con-vince the public? Not if Mr. Ballantineresponds effectively and growing GOPenthusiasm for Bush-Cheney translates intoa large voter turnout — one that willrebound to Mr. Ballantine’s advantage.

NORTH DAKOTA: Democrat JoeSatrom is challenging Republican Gov.John Hoeven. Here is a good political indi-cator: if the GOP starts to worry about thisrace, do not bet on much good news forRepublicans anywhere else in the country.

UTAH: Republican incumbent OleneWalker — who as lieutenant governor

assumed the top job when Mike Leavittbecame President Bush’s EPA chief — lostthe 2004 nomination to Jon Huntsman,who has an impressive lead in campaigncash over his Democratic opponent. Theone asset the latter has is his name, ScottMatheson, Jr., because his father served asgovernor and his brother is a congressman.But Utah is much more solidly Republicanthan it was in the senior Matheson’s day.

VERMONT: Incumbent RepublicanGov. Jim Douglas has enjoyed good for-tune. He replaced Howard Dean in 2002and benefits from the comparison. He alsowon the election that year against Lt. Gov.Doug Racine after the contest was thrownto the legislature. Finally, his Democraticopponent this year is Burlington MayorPeter Clavelle, who recently exited thehard-left Progressive Party. Clips of Mr.Clavelle marching in support of theSandinistas in the 1980s are being circulat-ed. Thus, Mr. Douglas seems well-posi-tioned even in Bernie Sanders’ back yard.

WASHINGTON: Attorney Gen.Christine Gregoire won the Democraticprimary in September and will faceRepublican state Sen. Dino Rossi. TheRepublicans have not won the Washingtongovernor’s race since 1980, but many ana-lysts regard the 2004 contest as difficult topredict. Mr. Rossi seeks to make the elec-tion a referendum on the performance

of Democratic Gov. Gary Locke. He statesthat a vote for Ms. Gregoire is a vote for“Locke’s third term.”

WEST VIRGINIA: Republican MontyWarner is hoping that the President’sstrength in this normally Democratic statewill help him in a tough race againstDemocratic secretary of state Joe Manchin.Current Democratic Gov. Bob Wise isunpopular: he embarrassed himself due toan extramarital affair with a state employee.However, Mr. Manchin appears to haveseparated himself from the scandal. There ismuch economic uncertainty in WestVirginia; however, it is the kind of insecuri-ty that has led such states to change partiesin recent years.

The 2004 gubernatorial races have notattracted the attention they deserve. Stategovernments make critical decisions aboutmany of the concerns that voters areexpressing this year. The fate of pro-growthtax policies, fundamental reforms ineducation, and other vital issues hang inthe balance.

— John Hood is a syndicated columnist,radio host, and president of the John LockeFoundation, a public policy think tank in

North Carolina. His latest book is “Sellingthe Dream: Why Advertising is GoodBusiness,” forthcoming from Praeger

Delaware Bill Lee (R) vs. Ruth Ann Minner (D) Indiana Mitch Daniels (R) vs. Joe Kernan (D)Missouri Matt Blunt (R) vs. Claire McCaskill (D)Montana Bob Brown (R) vs. Brian Schweitzer (D)New Hampshire Craig Benson (R) vs. John Lynch (D)North Carolina Patrick Ballantine (R) vs. Mike Easley (D)North Dakota John Hoeven (R) vs. Joe Satrom (D)Utah Jon Huntsman (R) vs. Scott Matheson, Jr. (D)Vermont Jim Douglas (R) vs. Peter Clavelle (D)Washington Dino Rossi (R) vs. Christine Gregoire (D)West Virginia Monty Warner (R) vs. Joe Manchin (D)

Illus

tratio

n by

Joh

n Bo

one

MO

WAMT ND

UTIN

WV

NC

DE

VT

NH

Ed Gillespie was elected chairman ofthe Republican National Committeein July 2003. Since taking over the

reins of the party, Mr. Gillespie has devel-oped a reputation as a tenacious defenderof President George W. Bush.

In less than a year on the job,Republicans have elected new governors inCalifornia, Kentucky and Mississippi. Mr.Gillespie has also set a fund-raising recordat the RNC. He is frequently seen on cableand network television refuting the parti-san attacks of the Democrats againstPresident Bush and Republicans inCongress.

Mr. Gillespie’s past accomplishmentsinclude being the strategist for ElizabethDole’s successful 2002 Senate campaign;serving as director of communications andcongressional affairs at the RNC underthen-Chairman Haley Barbour; and work-ing over a decade as a top aide to formerHouse Majority Leader Dick Armey, aprincipal drafter of the 1994 “Contractwith America.”

Mr. Gillespie, 42, was born in NewJersey. He is a graduate of the CatholicUniversity of America in Washington,D.C. Mr. Gillespie is married and hasthree children.

The chairman kindly agreed to aninterview. We also wish to thank his staff,especially Christine Iverson, for theircooperation and generosity in making theinterview possible.

RF: What is the RNC’s overall strategy toget President Bush elected on Nov. 2nd?

Gillespie: Our Republican strategy isfocused pretty much on the ground gameand voter turnout, making sure that we getour voters to the polls. … We are register-ing more than 3 million Republican votersin this election cycle, and now the challengeis to make sure we pull everyone out.

My goal is to make sure that the mostdangerous place to be on Election Day isbetween a voting booth and a Republican.We have more volunteers than we have everhad. We have our 72 hour program work-

ing to full capacity in all the battlegroundstates. By the time Nov. 2nd comes around,whether you are living in Ohio, NewMexico, Michigan, Oregon, NewHampshire, or any of the battlegroundstates, you will have heard all the 60-secondradio spots you can stand and all the 30-second TV spots you can stand and what’sreally going to make the difference is directcontact.

RF: What do you say to a lot ofRepublican activists in those battlegroundstates? What do you think they need to doin the next several weeks before the electionto help get out the vote?

Gillespie: I make this clear in every speechI give. In 2000, there were 55 ElectoralCollege votes from 5 states that were decid-ed by less than 17,000 votes. That’s twovotes per precinct that decided 55 ElectoralCollege votes in an election that PresidentBush won by one Electoral College vote.You need to tell somebody that thePresident won the White House with 271Electoral College votes. People need tounderstand that every vote matters andeverything that is done between now andNov. 2nd is critically important to us. Weare preparing for a close contest again.

As I say in various speeches, every dol-lar you donate, every door you knock, everye-mail you forward, every phone call youmake, every neighborhood you walk, everysign you post, every hour you volunteer,every bumper sticker you stick – all of itmakes a difference. And it makes a differ-ence as to who will be the next president ofthe United States.

RF: Do you think John Kerry has anymajor flaws as a candidate? If so, what arethey?

Gillespie: He has a couple. One, he haspolicy positions and voted — as a senatorfrom Massachusetts would vote under-standably — over the last 20 years until hehas policy positions outside the main-stream. They are very far from the center

and from the majority of Americans.I also think he has an inherent inabil-

ity to clearly take a position on some ofthe critical issues of the day. For someonewho voted for the No Child Left BehindAct and now campaigns against it; whovoted for the Patriot Act and now says ithas to be replaced; someone who voted forNAFTA and now says he would voteagainst it if he had to do it over again;someone who voted for the war in Iraqand now says it is the “wrong war at thewrong place at the wrong time”; someonewho said it would be irresponsible to voteagainst funding for our troops once com-mitted and then turned around and didexactly that and then said he voted for itbefore he voted against it — I think that intimes like these we require steady leader-ship in the White House. And I worry thatSenator Kerry’s constant vacillations andflip-flopping will not provide that.

RF: The Kerry campaign is charging thatPresident Bush’s record has been a disasteron the economy and on Iraq. In particular,their two main arguments are thatPresident Bush’s record on the economyhas been a net loss of jobs. Their secondargument is that Iraq has been a disaster,which threatens to become a quagmire forU.S. forces. How do you respond to thosetwo criticisms?

Gillespie: Senator Kerry and others in hisparty were touting in 1996 the strong eco-nomic conditions as the reason for re-elect-ing President Clinton. If you look at wherethe economy is today relative to 1996, weare … up. Household wealth in the UnitedStates has reached an all-time high.Unemployment is just about exactly whereit was in 1996. More people are working inAmerica than they were in 1996. The aver-age mortgage rate is lower today than in1996. The GDP growth rate is higher thanit was in 1996. More people, at a higherpercentage of Americans, own their ownhomes than in 1996. The fact is that thevery economic indicators that Democratswere touting about in 1996, President

InterviewTheRipon

Forum

An interview with RNC Chairman Ed GillespieThe Republican Moment



Bush’s economic indicators are better inevery single one of those categories today.

So, the fact is that the President issomeone who inherited a recession andturned it into a recovery. We have more todo and the President has put a positiveagenda going forward to add momentum tothe economy. Senator Kerry’s desire to raisetaxes would only take us back to slow eco-nomic growth, maybe even a recession.

In terms of Iraq, Sen. John McCainwas right at our convention whenhe said the choice wasn’t between a happy,peaceful Iraq under a benevolent SaddamHussein and war. The case was between warand something worse. And I think you areseeing … that although there werenot weapons stockpiles, there certainlywas the capacity and the desire tocommence production as soon as thechance allowed itself.

RF: Let’s talk about the con-gressional races in November.What do you think theRepublican chances are of keep-ing the House and the Senate?

Gillespie: Very good. I believethat we will expand our majori-ties in the House and the Senate.… If you look at what’s going onin Georgia, North Carolina,South Carolina, things are firm-ing up for the Republican candi-dates. Mel Martinez is a verystrong candidate for the U.S.Senate in Florida, and inLouisiana David Vitter is run-ning a great Senate race againstDemocrat Chris John. So wehave those five Democratic openseats where we have an opportu-nity to win all of them.

We have some seats todefend ourselves. Oklahoma,Colorado and Illinois are threeopen seats, and I am not sure wecan win all of those seats. But wewill win the lion’s share of thoseseats. And we have very compet-itive candidates across the coun-

try, particularly in South Dakota whereRepublican John Thune, in the latest polls,leads Sen. Tom Daschle. … And I have totell you, I was just in Wisconsin recently,and our nominee there, Tim Michaels, isone of the best candidates I have seen as achallenger in running against an incum-bent who is eminently beatable. So I amvery optimistic that we will expand ourmargins in the House and the Senate.

RF: A lot of commentators say that thispresidential race will boil down to the threebattleground states of Pennsylvania, Ohioand Florida. Do you agree with that assess-ment? If you do, what do you thinkRepublicans have to do in those threestates to turn out their voters?

Gillespie: I think that it is broader thanthat. I would add to that list certainlyMinnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico — allthe states that went to Al Gore in 2000and that I think are increasingly likely togo to President Bush in 2004. The fact isthat the Democrats and John Kerry areincreasingly taking Bush states off themap, which is making the electoral mapmuch more focused on Gore states. This isa happy dynamic for us. Just overthe past 3 weeks, they have pulled theiradvertising down in Louisiana, Arkansas,Colorado, Arizona, Virginia, NorthCarolina and Missouri.

So, I think that the most importantthing people can do in the battlegroundstates is if you have a neighbor who is aBush supporter and that neighbor is notregistered, make sure they get registeredbefore the deadline falls. If they are goingto be out of town on Election Day, makesure they vote absentee. If they are in town,make sure they vote. This is all about peo-ple talking to people and that is what thePresident’s supporters need to be doing onthe ground for the next several weeks.

RF: On a personal note, assumingPresident Bush wins and the GOP keepscontrol of the House and the Senate, doyou still plan to stay on as RNC chairmanor can we see Ed Gillespie as a candidatefor office sometime in the near future?

Gillespie: Well, I serve at the pleasure ofthe President. I am dedicated to him andwill stay as long as he needs me here. I havealways been a behind-the-scenes guy. Thisis the first job where I have been up frontmyself. I enjoy it very much, but I have totell you, my focus, starting Nov. 3, is togetting back to spending time with mychildren and I’m not sure seeking electedoffice would allow me to do that.

— Jeffrey T. Kuhner is theeditor of The Ripon Forum


RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie

Cou

rtesy

of C

hairm

an G

illes

pie’

s of

fice

Exclusive interviews withleading politicians in every issue.

TheRiponForum

“People need to understand that every vote matters and everything that

is done between now and Nov. 2nd is critically important to us. We are

preparing for a close contest again.”

Spencer Abraham became the nation’s10th Secretary of Energy on Jan. 20,2001. He leads a Cabinet department

with a $21 billion budget and over100,000 federal and contractor employees.

Under Mr. Abraham’s leadership, theDepartment of Energy (DOE) has pursuedan ambitious agenda that strengthensAmerica’s energy and national security.

In January 2002, Mr. Abrahamlaunched an aggressive new technologyresearch program to develop the future ofenergy. Under this new Freedom CARprogram, the government and the privatesector will fund research into advanced,efficient fuel cell technology which useshydrogen to power automobiles withoutcreating any pollution. The long-termresults of this cooperative effort will be carsand trucks that are more efficient, cheaperto operate, pollution-free and competitivein the showroom.

This plan is rooted in PresidentGeorge W. Bush’s call to reduce Americanreliance on foreign oil through a balance ofnew domestic energy production andnew technology to promote greater energyefficiency.

As the leader of one of the federal gov-ernment’s largest agencies, Mr. Abraham isalso its top manager. After becoming sec-retary, he instituted a series of key manage-ment reforms that have made DOE one ofthe most effective agencies in the federalgovernment. Under his leadership, everyDOE program has conducted top-to-bot-tom reviews of their spending prioritiesand established new blueprints for the

future. The reform plan is notjust about controlling spendingand bureaucracy, but aboutmanaging programs effectively.

Prior to becoming secretaryof energy, Mr. Abraham servedas a U.S. senator from Michiganfrom 1995 to 2001. Before hiselection to the Senate, Mr.Abraham served as co-chairmanof the National RepublicanCongressional Committee(NRCC) from 1991 to 1993.He was also deputy chief of staffto Vice President Dan Quaylefrom 1990 to 1991.

Mr. Abraham and his wifeJane, have three children. He isa native of Lansing, Michiganand a graduate of the HarvardUniversity School of Law andMichigan State University.

We wish to thank Mr.Abraham and his staff for theircooperation and generosity inmaking this interview happen.Here are excerpts:

RF: The issue of drilling for oil in theArctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)in Alaska has received considerable mediacoverage during the past several years. Howdo you respond to critics who charge that itwill damage the environment? Also, canyou explain for our readers why ANWR isso important to the administration’s overallstrategy in boosting domestic energyproduction?

Abraham: First of all, when we are chal-lenged in terms of growing world demandfor oil, and when we see the United States’dependence on foreign oil continuing torise, it should send a signal that we need toget our own energy house in order. And onething we need to do to accomplish that is toincrease our own domestic production. Thebattle that relates to ANWR is really asomewhat frustrating one for us. It has beenestimated that there is anywhere from 5 to16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. That isAmerican oil on American soil that couldhelp us deal with these periodic price spikeswhich we encounter.

The area of ANWR in which thedebate is taking place, is roughly the size ofthe state of South Carolina. The amountwhere we need to extract all of this oil isroughly the size of a major airport. So, forthose who are arguing that this will be amajor environmental challenge, they aresimply wrong. There is no question in my

InterviewTheRipon

Forum

An interview with Energy Secretary Spencer AbrahamStrengthening U.S. Energy Security


Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham

Cou

rtesy

of S

ecre

tary

Abr

aham

’s of

fice


“The reason that ANWR is so important to our overall

energy strategy is that we do need to be able to have more

flexibility in dealing with the crises we face in the world.

If ANWR is anywhere from 5 to 16 billion barrels of oil,

that is a huge amount of oil that could help us to offset

problems if there is a disruption in world energy supply.”

mind that we can, with modern drillingtechnology that exists, extract this oil in afashion that is consistent with the healthand safety of the environment and thespecies and wildlife refuge in the area.

But the reason that ANWR is soimportant to our overall energy strategy isthat we do need to be able to have moreflexibility in dealing with the crises we facein the world. If ANWR is anywhere from 5to 16 billion barrels of oil, that is a hugeamount of oil that could help us to offsetproblems if there is a disruption in worldenergy supply. Right now, the energy mar-kets are very nervous about the possibilitythat terrorists, in some fashion or another,undermine production in Iraq or in someother part of the world. Well, the amountof oil that we envision being able to beremoved from ANWR on a daily basiscould be as much as a million barrels of oil.That is almost as much as we are importingon a daily basis from countries likeSaudi Arabia.

RF: If the President gets re-elected, are yougoing to continue pushing for drilling inANWR?

Abraham: I am sure that we will continueto work to pass ANWR, along with the restof our energy recommendations that camefrom the President’s energy plan. But Ithink it is also important for people tounderstand that ANWR is just one of 105recommendations which the President’senergy policy included. About 95 of those105 recommendations are actions that weare already implementing. ANWR is one ofthe 10 or so that requires Congress’support. I would also stress that out of the105 recommendations, the majority ofthem were in areas such as greater energyefficiency, more energy conservation, theuse of alternative fuels and more renewableenergy. ANWR was one of the fewproposals in the energy plan thatactually dealt with increasing domesticenergy production.

Sometimes I think that the administra-tion’s energy policy and the President havebeen very unfairly criticized by people whosay it is a production-only policy. Quite thecontrary, it is a balanced policy thatbalances more production from things suchas ANWR with more conservation, moreefficiency, more renewable energy and ofcourse, some of the transformational tech-nology like hydrogen that had been stressedby the President.

RF: Why do you think the Left and liber-al Democrats have made such an issue outof ANWR?

Abraham: I am not going to try to readthe minds of our critics. I find it stunningwhen you look at the numbers. The verycritics who called on us, for example, tocease putting oil into our strategic petrole-um reserve — the backbone of our securi-ty against a major supply disruption ifterrorism happens — the very people whosaid we should stop doing that in order toput down the price of gasoline by a pennyor two per gallon, are the same people whodon’t want us to develop ANWR, whichwould provide us with tremendoussecurity, both in terms of dependence, butalso in terms of price spikes.

If you look at the smallest projectionof oil in ANWR, which is about 5 billionbarrels of oil and you extract it at 100,000barrels a day, which is the amount we putinto the strategic reserve per day, you canfill the reserve for 100 years every singleday. And yet the same critics who want usto stop filling the reserve also want us tonot tap ANWR. So I find it verydisconcerting, because I think at a timethat we know that people are trying toundermine our energy security andthrough it, our national security, weneed to have available to us as manyopportunities, as many options, aspossible. And ANWR is one of them.

RF: An important pillar of theadministration’s strategy to make theUnited States less dependent on foreign oilhas been to promote alternative sources ofenergy. Is the push for hydrogen-poweredcars the linchpin of that strategy?

Abraham: It certainly is our mostambitious project, but we also arepursuing several other major new initia-tives. Take clean coal, which ranks right upthere with hydrogen. Granted, we haveused the fossil fuel coal for a while, butclean coal will require similar kinds of realscientific breakthroughs to be achievable.We have also embarked, under thePresident’s direction, on an internationalcollaborative research project, which willtake 20 plus years to execute and to deter-mine whether nuclear fusion is a viableenergy source for the later part of the 21stcentury. And we are investing a substantialamount of money in the fusion program.

So, it is not just hydrogen. But that

one probably has the unique stamp ofPresident Bush’s administration.

RF: Has there been resistance from theautomobile industry regarding a shift tohydrogen-powered cars?

Abraham: No. Quite the contrary, all ofthe companies are engaged directly with usin both the planning, as well as the experi-mentation work that we are doing in termsof the hydrogen-fueled power vehicles. Wehave just announced a very ambitious set ofgrants that will total something in thevicinity of $300 million that will bematched by the private sector, for a total of$600 million in the first phase of hydrogenresearch grants. In the initial phase ofprograms each of the major U.S. autocompanies as well as the major foreign autocompanies, are partnering with us to devel-op these products. And I might add theenergy companies are also partnering onthese projects to develop both the vehiclesand the fueling systems that will allow us tomove the hydrogen project to reality.

I think people thought there would beresistance because these two industries typ-ically do not want to work on this, becausethere was always this chicken and egg prob-lem. You had the auto industry say we willbuild the car when we have a fueling sys-tem, and the energy company saying thatthey will build a fueling system when theysaw the cars. Now we have everybody at thesame table working together. That is why Iam optimistic that we will be successful.

It is, in a certain sense, a bit ironic. Youhave a President from Texas, who has calledfor a dramatic change in the whole way weutilize energy to power motor vehicles; aPresident from Texas, oil country, anda former oil industry executive himself, whohas talked about hydrogen fuel; and youhave an energy secretary from Michigan,who’s own history and background andfamily connection has been to internalcombustion engines, talking aboutrevolutionizing the way engines and auto-mobiles are produced. But I think it is theright course for America and the world,because ultimately, it will allow us toaddress both our energy dependencechallenges at the same time wesurmount a number of our environmentalchallenges.

— Jeffrey T. Kuhner iseditor of The Ripon Forum


Wade F. Horn was nominatedby President George W. Bushto be the Assistant Secretary

for Children and Families at the U.S.Department of Health and HumanServices on Feb. 28, 2001.

With a $47 billion budget, theAdministration for Children andFamilies (ACF) is responsible for pro-grams that promote the social andeconomic well-being of America’schildren, youth and families. Includedamong ACF’s 65 programs are thenational welfare-to-work program,TANF (Temporary Assistance forNeedy Families); foster care; adoptionassistance; Head Start, child care;child support enforcement; positiveyouth development programs; refugeeresettlement; and services for thosewith developmental disabilities.

Since 2001, Mr. Horn has played a keyrole in implementing several of PresidentBush’s initiatives to strengthen children andfamilies. These efforts include leading thePresident’s Healthy Marriage Initiative,which seeks to incorporate marriage educa-tion and resources into the broad array ofsocial services ACF provides; launching amentorship program for children of incar-cerated parents; providing community andfaith-based organizations with training andtechnical assistance to help them expand orimprove services to the poor and vulnera-ble; enhancing the ability of the Head Startprogram and child care providers to helplow-income children develop critical earlyliteracy skills; and launching a major publicawareness campaign to help victims ofhuman trafficking in the United States.

Prior to his appointment at ACF, Mr.Horn was president of the NationalFatherhood Initiative, whose mission is toimprove child well-being by increasing theproportion of children growing up withinvolved, committed and responsiblefathers in their lives.

Mr. Horn is frequently featured on

national television and radio and hasauthored numerous articles and books onchildren and family issues. He received hisPh.D. in clinical child psychology fromSouthern Illinois University in 1981. Mr.Horn is married with two daughters.

We wish to thank Mr. Horn and hisstaff for their cooperation and generosity inmaking this interview possible. Here areexcerpts:

RF: How did someone who voted forGeorge McGovern in the 1972 presidentialelection end up becoming a prominentRepublican in the Bush administration?

Horn: Well, because the Democratic Partyleft me. I am not sure I changed all thatmuch. But I no longer felt welcomed as theDemocratic Party evolved into a party of spe-cial interests. I have always been attracted topolitical leaders who have an optimistic, pos-itive vision both of America and America’sfuture. And I am also a very results-orientedperson, who is willing to entertainnew ideas if those new ideas holdpromise for improving things — particularly,

given that I am a childpsychologist — for families andchildren in America.

And to give you one veryspecific example of how theDemocratic Party left me, and Ididn’t leave it, the DemocraticParty is completely resistant to theidea of school choice. And I justcan’t be part of a political partythat puts the interests of systemsand groups above the well beingof kids and families. …

And to a very large extent,what attracted me to theRepublican Party is that theybecame the party of optimism,they became the party that we areabout results and not just aboutintentions.

RF: The ACF has received a lot of attentionregarding the Healthy Marriage Initiative.Can you explain how it came about andwhat are some of its basic objectives?

Horn: The mission statement of thePresident’s Healthy Marriage Initiative isthis: To help couples, who choose marriagefor themselves, have greater access to servic-es where they can develop the skills andknowledge necessary to form and sustainhealthy marriages. It is based on an observa-tion, that all things being equal, and noteverything is always equal, but all thingsbeing equal, kids who grow up within thecontext of a two-parent healthy, marriedhousehold, do better than kids who don’t.And just on a probability basis, if your childis about to be born and you get to choose,which of course, children don’t, but if youcould and you could pick a family at ran-dom out of category 1, category 1 being atwo-parent healthy household, category 2being everything else. And if you wanted tomaximize your chances of success, it’s not acoin flip which of those two categories youwould pick at random from. It doesn’t mean

InterviewTheRipon

Forum

An interview with Assistant Secretaryfor Children and Families Wade Horn

Fostering Strong Families


Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade Horn

Cou

rtesy

of A

ssis

tant

Sec

reta

ry H

orn’

s of

fice


that you are assured of a positive future ifyou pick the two-parent family household.Nor does it mean that you are doomed tofailure if you pick the other category. But ona probability basis, it is just irrefutable at thispoint that kids do best when they grow upin the context of a two-parent healthy, mar-ried household.

… So, it is about helping couples whochoose marriage for themselves. It is notabout government interfering with the inti-mate decision-making of a couple ofwhether or not they ought to get married.We are a limited government — a conserva-tive government. Government ought to belimited, even in the name of doing good.And one of the things it ought not to inter-fere with is the decision-making a couplegoes through. But once a couple has madethat decision — they have decided that theywant to explore marriage, they have gottenengaged, or they are married already — wewant to provide them with greater access toservices where they can form and sustain ahealthy marriage.

RF: The issue of gay marriage has receiveda lot of media attention. Do you have anypersonal views on the issue?

Horn: As a federal official, I don’t have theluxury of a personal opinion. I am a federalemployee 24/7. As a Senate confirmed offi-cial and anything I say, I am saying on behalfof the federal government. If you ask mewho I want to win the World Series, I havea personal view. That is okay. But on issuesof public policy, it is my role to state the pol-icy of the administration and on the issue ofgay marriage, I, as a federal official, operateunder something called the Defense ofMarriage Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA) does two things. One of which,most people know, at least in theory — let’ssee if this holds up constitutionally or not— is that one state cannot impose its defi-nition of marriage on another state. But thesecond thing it does, which is not as wellknown, is that it defines for purposes for allfederal programs and benefits, marriage asthe legal union between one man and onewoman. As a federal official, I operateunder federal law and federal law, by anoverwhelming vote in the United StatesCongress, both in the House and the Senate(only 14 U.S. senators voted againstDOMA, one of them happens to be JohnKerry), came to a large consensus that Ithink is reflective … of most Americans:that marriage is defined as the legal unionof one man and one woman. Certainly thisPresident feels very strongly about that.And I have to operate under that law.

RF: What about the issue of a constitu-tional amendment to define marriagebetween a man and a woman?

Horn: The President feels very stronglythat this ought to be an issue — and I agreewith him — that this ought to be an issuethat is settled by the people, and not by asmall number of unelected judges.Remember, the Massachusetts court deci-sion was settled 4-3 [in favor of gaymarriage]. One vote and you have adifferent opinion. So it seems that this istoo important an issue that we are going tosay we will leave this up to some judges todecide for us.

But rather, this is something that we,as a people, in a representative democracy,ought to be debating and to be deciding by

the people, not by the court system by fiat.And the President feels that the best vehiclefor both generating that conversation anddeciding that question is a constitutionalamendment.

And you know what? It has generateda conversation and that’s a good thing. …Debate is a healthy thing. You ought tohave a debate and not simply be handeddown decisions by judges because they per-sonally feel this way or that way.

RF: How do you think family issues willbe played out in the November presidentialcampaign?

Horn: Clearly, the whole idea of the defini-tion of marriage is going to be an importantpiece of this campaign. I think one of theunderreported aspects of John Kerry’srecord is that, while he says he is opposed togay marriage, there was one opportunitywhen he was a U.S. senator to do some-thing, for the purpose of the federal gov-ernment at least, to define marriage as theunion between one man and one woman.He voted against it, being one of only 14senators to do so. This was DOMA. Andthis would protect one state from anotherstate’s definition of marriage. He said hewas against that. He says now that he thinkseach state should decide for itself. But theone opportunity he had to vote for a pieceof legislation where each state would beable to decide for itself, he voted against it.So there is a kind of inconsistency in Kerry’srecord in this regard.

I also hope that one of the things thatwe will be able to get out in this campaignis the President’s record on what he hasdone through his compassionate agenda. …President Bush has done a lot, I think, toreach out, in a compassionate way, throughmentoring programs for kids, for example;through the Healthy Marriage Initiative; …through some of the reforms on Head Startto focus more on the accountability of theresults, for example — to ensure we aredoing the best job.

Government can’t do everything. Butwhat it can do, government should do well.And we have a story to tell in this regard.I hope during the campaign that thataspect of this administration will behighlighted.

— Jeffrey T. Kuhner iseditor of The Ripon Forum


“The mission statement of the President’s Healthy

Marriage Initiative is this: To help couples, who

choose marriage for themselves, have greater

access to services where they can develop the

skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain

healthy marriages.”

The new Medicare law will makeprescription drugs more affordable forAmerica’s seniors. It will also keep sen-

iors healthier and will reduce sky-rocketinghealth care costs.

We have long known about the finan-cial pressure that the high cost of healthcare puts on American families — especial-ly seniors living on fixed incomes, pensionsand Social Security checks. The Medicarelaw is already saving seniors money on thedrugs they need. According to the nonpar-tisan Healthcare Leadership Council, theMedicare-approved discount cards will savethe average American senior $1,200 overthe next 18 months. When the card pro-gram ends and the Medicare prescriptiondrug coverage begins in 2006, seniors willsave even more. Seniors with very lowincomes will pay less than $5 for each pre-scription they fill — with no premium, nodeductible and no gap in coverage. This is abetter deal for low-income seniors thanmany popular state assistance programs.

A new study confirms that chronicillnesses such as diabetes and heart diseaseaccount for a majority of the $200 billionrise in health care costs in the last twodecades. The study tracked 370 conditionsand their costs from 1987 to 2000,and found that just 15 accounted for awhopping 56 percent of the increase inheath care costs during that time. And justfive common conditions — heart disease,pulmonary conditions like asthma, mentalillnesses, cancer, and hypertension —

accounted for one-third of the increase.Indeed, one third of seniors have four

or more chronic illnesses and account for70 percent of Medicare’s spending.Evidently, chronic illnesses are primarilyresponsible for rising health care costs inthis country and are the biggest obstacle toaffordable health care.

Experts agree that keeping peoplehealthier, and managing chronic illnesses toprevent them from getting worse, is the bestway to solve this problem. In short, we needto play offense with chronic illnesses, notdefense. For example, 12 million Americanssuffer from heart disease and it accounts fora greater share of health care cost increases

than any other chronic illness. This isbecause until last year, Medicare coveredthe $20,000 average yearly cost of hospital-izations for congestive heart failure.Medicare did not cover inexpensive choles-terol screenings, nor did it cover the $70monthly cost of cholesterol medications.This system defies common sense and goodmedicine.

But now, because of the new law,Medicare will cover the less expensive med-ications that help keep seniors healthy andout of the hospital. This will reduce healthcare costs and drastically improve the qual-ity of life for seniors. Moreover, theMedicare law also creates new benefits —such as a “Welcome to Medicare” physicaland screenings for heart disease and dia-betes — in order to diagnose chronic con-ditions earlier when they are most treatable.The old saying “an ounce of prevention isworth a pound of cure” has never hadgreater meaning.

If you are diagnosed with a chronic ill-ness, Medicare can help. Eight millionAmerican seniors suffer from diabetes. NowMedicare will work with them and theirdoctor to help control diet, monitor bloodsugar and drug regimens, and improveoverall health. This team effort to effective-ly manage chronic illness is now a part ofMedicare, and it will work with up to300,000 seniors across the country whosuffer from chronic illnesses in the next fewyears before expanding it to all seniors.

The comprehensive, proactiveapproach taken in the Medicare law is asuitable response to the fact that relativelyfew chronic illnesses account for so much ofour rising health care costs. Because of thislandmark law, Medicare is no longer just abill-payer. It is now a partner with seniors;it ensures that they are healthier and haveaccess to affordable prescription drugs. As aresult, the new Medicare law will reducehealth care costs for all Americans.

— Rep. Nancy L. Johnson is a ConnecticutRepublican and chairman of the House Ways

and Means Health Subcommittee

New law will lower health care costs Improving Treatment of Chronic Illnesses

By U.S. Representative Nancy L. Johnson

yPublic Policy


Cou

rtesy

of R

ep. J

ohns

on’s

offic

eU.S. Rep. Nancy L. Johnson

“Because of this landmark law, Medicare is no

longer just a bill-payer. It is now a partner with

seniors; it ensures that they are healthier and

have access to affordable prescription drugs.”

The American economy is in a wide-spread recovery. We are creating jobs inall sectors. GDP is growing at its fastest

pace in 20 years. Factory orders are up 14percent over last year. Housing starts are near20-year highs.

Despite all the positive news, there arestill too many Americans who are not work-ing. We can do better. As President GeorgeW. Bush has said repeatedly, we will not restuntil every American who wants a job canfind a job.

Working with the Bush administrationand the Republican Congress, I have devel-oped a plan to ignite the American economyfurther and help put our employers on amore level playing field so that they canbetter compete internationally. Our“American Jobs Agenda” is aimed at passinglegislation to make American companiesmore efficient at home so that they cancompete better internationally. The endresult will be more orders for U.S. goods andservices and more jobs for Americans.

We have learned that when we reducetaxes on our workers and our small employ-ers, people buy more and employers putmore people to work to meet the addeddemand. President Bush’s tax cuts dramati-cally lowered the tax burden on families andon our small business owners, who create 75percent of all new jobs each year. As a result,1.5 million new jobs so far have beencreated this year.

The problem is that many of thePresident’s tax cuts will expire soon if we donot extend them permanently. The resultwill be massive tax hikes on Americans andon our small employers. This will devastateour recovery, bankrupt many smallbusinesses in America, and put many moreAmericans on the unemployment lines. TheUnited States Congress must make thePresident’s tax cuts permanent: this isessential to our economic recovery.

We are also working to pass abusiness tax bill which lowers taxes for U.S.manufacturers. I am leading the charge inWashington to ensure that the bill rewardsall manufacturers — both large and small —who keep jobs in America.

The surging cost of health care in

America is not only increasing the rolls of theuninsured in our country but is reducing thebottom line for many small employers. Smallbusinesses in America regard skyrocketinghealth care costs as their number oneconcern. Congress must act to givethem options.

Earlier this year, the House passed twobills which would dramatically lower the costof health care. One bill would allow smallbusinesses to band together and purchasehealth insurance for their employees at grouprates through national associations such asthe National Federation of IndependentBusiness and the National RestaurantAssociation. The second bill would reformour out-of-control medical liability system.The existing system has led directly to surg-ing health care costs as a result of annualdouble-digit medical malpractice insurancehikes. The liability system has also con-tributed to rising costs indirectly dueto added medical testing fees from frighteneddoctors who practice “defensive medicine.”The medical malpractice crisis in Americahas become so severe that it has actuallyforced many doctors out of their practices.Despite several House votes the past threeyears on Association Health Plan and med-ical liability bills, Senate Democrats have pre-vented action in the Senate.

Costly and unnecessary regulations alsocontribute to the heavy burden which oftenmakes U.S. companies non-competitive inthe global marketplace. Our employersalready pay up to $700 billion each year tocomply with federal regulations. Dueto the leadership of President Bush, our gov-

ernment is currently conducting a compre-hensive review of all regulations affectingmanufacturers in order to determine whetherthey are necessary. In addition, I have spon-sored legislation — the Regulatory FlexibilityImprovements Act — which would requirefederal agencies to justify their regulationsand to make all possible efforts to reduce theburden on America’s small businesses.

Other domestic necessities to makeAmerican businesses more efficient andcompetitive include:

• Energy self-sufficiency: The Househas twice passed a comprehensive energy bill(H.R. 6) that encourages environmentallysound development and conservation tohelp reduce energy costs in America. TheSenate must act now.

• Education and worker retraining:Precarious job prospects discourageAmericans from planning careers in manu-facturing and information technology.Education must be transformed into aprocess of lifelong learning. The costs shouldbe offset by tax deductions or credits, asappropriate. Trade Adjustment Assistanceshould be available to all affected workers.

• Research and Development:Congress should make the R&D tax creditpermanent and must prioritize funding forthe most promising technologies of thefuture. Advanced manufacturing is a vitalcomponent of America’s national securityand must be preserved.

This “American Jobs Agenda” willreduce costs and help make our businessesmore competitive.

But competition with foreign compa-nies must be on a level playing field. Andright now, many of our foreign competitors— especially China — have an unfair edge.China is giving its manufacturers a hugecompetitive advantage simply by manipulat-ing its currency to keep it artificially lowagainst the U.S. dollar. This currency manip-ulation has given Chinese manufacturers asmuch as a 40 percent cost advantage overU.S. products. I praise the actions ofPresident Bush, Commerce Secretary DonEvans and Treasury Secretary John Snowwho have increasingly raised this issue withthe Chinese government. We are fortunateto have a President who understands that, inorder to create jobs in America, it is essentialto knock down trade barriers overseasand to open new avenues for internationalcommerce.

— Rep. Don Manzullo is an IllinoisRepublican and chairman of theHouse Small Business Committee

Putting Americans back to workA 21st Century Jobs Agenda

By U.S. Representative Don Manzullo

yPublic Policy


Cou

rtesy

of R

ep. M

anzu

llo’s

offic

e

U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo

yPublic Policy

The liberals are so hysterical about thePatriot Act that they are making com-parisons with Nazi Germany in 1938.

Democrats describe it as “Hitleresque.”Actress Janeane Garofalo has called thePatriot Act “a conspiracy of the 43rdReich.” Sen. John Edwards is “horrified”by it. Al Gore condemns it as a repressionof basic American freedoms.

Hollywood liberals are the mostvociferous critics of the Patriot Act. Theyare obsessed with a libertine lifestyle and asa result they attribute to the Act a“pervasive chilling of civil liberties.” Theyspeak of an Orwellian America in whichprotest has been muffled by the fear of BigBrother. They make such claims even asthey shamelessly indulge in their owninsults of President George W. Bush: ChevyChase calls him “a liar;” John Mellencamprefers to him as a “cheap thug;” andMichael Moore devotes an entire movie toridiculing him.

The critics imply that the Patriot Actwas somehow foisted upon the country bya duplicitous administration. In fact, theAct passed the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1.Just last year, Democratic Sen. JosephBiden reaffirmed his support for the law: hedeclared that criticisms of it were “bothmisinformed and overblown.” Sen. DianeFeinstein even admitted that she did notknow of a single instance in which the lawhad been abused. But that was before the2004 presidential campaign heated up —and before the Democratic money-machinein Hollywood began its high-profile boutof panic and paranoia.

Mirroring his party’s flip-flop on thePatriot Act, John Kerry has twice switchedhis position. In the wake of 9/11, Mr.Kerry praised the Act. Then, responding topressure from the left during primary sea-son, Mr. Kerry referred to the law as a“trampling on the Bill of Rights.” But oncehe secured the nomination, Mr. Kerryflipped again. He declared that he did notwish to repeal the law; he only wanted tostrengthen it.

The liberal hysteria regarding thePatriot Act is mystifying — especially when

it is so starkly apparent that liberal accusa-tions are false. The Act focuses primarilyon three areas: electronic surveillance of ter-rorism suspects; eliminating barriers to thesharing of information between intelligenceagencies and law enforcement officials; andgovernment access to financial and otherrecords of suspected terrorists. The elec-tronic surveillance provisions essentiallyallow terrorism investigators to obtain thekind of roving wiretaps used by lawenforcement personnel against drug deal-ers. Roving wiretaps, which permit contin-uing surveillance even if the suspectchanges his communication methods, arevital in an age of cell phones and e-mail. Inthis respect, the Patriot Act simply correctsa dangerous double standard: it gives to thewar on terror the same legal tools that areused in the war on drugs.

The Patriot Act also allows courts totemporarily delay notifying a suspect that asearch warrant has been executed: however,this delay is only permitted when there is asignificant risk that the suspect might fleeor destroy evidence. Contrary to liberalrantings, federal courts have consistentlyruled that this practice is in accordancewith the Constitution. In 1979, theSupreme Court even stated that it was “friv-olous” to argue that delayed notificationwas unconstitutional. And in 2002, a fed-eral appeals court unanimously approvedthe electronic surveillance provisions in thePatriot Act.

Perhaps the Act’s most sweepingreform is the removal of legal barriers pre-venting law enforcement and national secu-rity personnel from sharing informationabout potential threats — barriers that evenMr. Kerry believes must be eliminated toprevent another 9/11. This “wall of separa-

tion” stems back to 1978 when, appeasingthe post-Vietnam vindictiveness of anti-warprotestors, the Democratic Congress passeda law prohibiting information gathered bycounter-intelligence services to be sharedwith domestic law enforcement officials. Inits report released this past summer, thebipartisan 9/11 Commission concludedthat these information-sharing barriers sub-stantially aided the al Qaeda terrorists.

The Patriot Act empowers the govern-ment to search vital records in a terrorisminvestigation. For example, terrorists haveused libraries to communicate with eachother and to conduct research. Also, theircredit-card records and travel receipts canprovide valuable information about theiractivities. As organized crime cases haveshown, the easier it is to follow moneytrails, the easier it is to break up criminalcells. Law enforcement officials in embez-zlement cases have long been able to searchbusiness records without any constitutionalobjection. And grand juries have had thepower to subpoena bookstore and libraryrecords. Such records, for instance, wereused to convict the murderer of designerGianni Versace.

The liberal hysteria against the PatriotAct is based on divisive lies. Democratsdepict federal agents lurking aroundlibraries and snooping into the books peo-ple read. Yet, recently declassified informa-tion reveals that the Act has never oncebeen used to look at individuals’ libraryrecords. Even though some liberals insistthat the Patriot Act has wiped out civil lib-erties, none of the powers authorized by theAct are available to the government withouta specific court order — and none exceedthe scope that is currently used against drugdealers and mob bosses.

Rather than making exaggeratedclaims regarding a piece of legislation thatis vital to the war on terror, liberals woulddo better to channel their energy towarddevising solutions to the vexing nationalsecurity issues that we face.

— Patrick M. Garry is a professor at theUniversity of South Dakota School of Law

Liberal accusations are falsePatriot Act Preserves Security

By Patrick M. Garry


“The liberal hysteria regardingthe Patriot Act is mystifying —especially when it is so starklyapparent that liberal accusationsare false.”

During his first term, President GeorgeW. Bush reinvigorated American tradepolicy. Despite a few notable lapses, the

trade policy of the Bush administration hasindeed advanced the cause of freemarkets and open competition.

After almost a decade of stalemate, theBush administration made a breakthroughon trade promotion authority (TPA). This isthe congressional mandate that allows theexecutive to negotiate trade agreementsunder special expedited procedures. Duringthe president’s tenure, there also emergedtwo distinct new hallmarks of trade policy.There is now an explicit linkage of trade pol-icy and other U.S. political, diplomatic andsecurity goals. And the administrationadvanced the doctrine of “competitive liber-alization”: America will negotiate free tradeagreements (FTAs) with both individualcountries and combinations of countries inorder to trigger a competitive stampede ofmarket liberalization that will ultimatelycoalesce into global free trade.

In light of the last four years of incessanttrade initiatives, one can easily forget thestagnant environment that precededPresident Bush’s term. For example, after1994, when trade promotion authoritylapsed, the United States had to stand idly byand watch other nations conclude approxi-mately 130 FTAs. These clearly discriminat-ed against U.S. industrial and service firms.In contrast, at the end of 2002, the Bushadministration broke this deadlock andsecured TPA. In order to do so, the adminis-tration compromised on the divisive issueof the role of labor and environmental rulesin trade treaties. The legislative process wasextremely difficult: half of the SenateDemocrats and three quarters of HouseDemocrats opposed the President. Theadministration therefore had to make con-cessions to certain textile and agriculturalprotectionists. Nonetheless, this break-through allowed the United States to “re-enter the game” and execute its goals.

Furthermore, U.S. Trade RepresentativeRobert Zoellick skillfully advanced the doc-trine of “competitive liberalization.” He con-cluded agreements with Singapore, Chile,

Jordan, Australia, and five Central Americancountries. Also, the United States is activelynegotiating with Morocco, Thailand,Bahrain, the whole of South America andthe five South African Customs Unionnations. Individually, most of these FTAsrepresent only a small fraction of total U.S.trade; but taken together (including FTAA),they will amount to a substantial portion oftotal trade. Thus, discrimination againstU.S. firms and workers has been substantial-ly reduced.

One of the major criticisms leveled at“competitive liberalization” is that it signals amovement away from the WTO and theDoha Round as a top priority for U.S. tradepolicy. Once again, the facts show otherwise:the Bush administration has clearly taken thelead in a number of areas in the DohaRound. In fact, the Bush team has advancedbold proposals for zero industrialtariffs by 2015, large reductions inagricultural subsidies and border tariffs,and sweeping liberalization in majorservice sectors.

There has also been bipartisan criticismof the President’s decision to link trade withother political, security and diplomaticgoals. Such criticism merely demonstratesthe parochialism of trade experts in bothparties. Although the Bush administrationhas been more explicit, the pursuit of thenational interest has always necessitated ameshing of economic with political and evennational security objectives. This fusion isparticularly cogent in the post-9/11 world.Thus, it makes perfect sense for strategic rea-sons to include Morocco, Bahrain, Jordan,Australia — and even potentially, Taiwan —in the administration’s list of priority FTAs.

However, there are lapses in the Bush-Zoellick trade policy. The most notable isthat in the key electoral states of WestVirginia and Ohio, the Bush administrationsuccumbed to the demands of steel produc-ers and accepted the imposition of steel tar-iffs or “safeguards.”

Also reprehensible was the administra-tion’s supine acquiescence to the passage ofthe 2002 agricultural authorization bill thatlocked into place huge subsidies and protec-

tion for key agricultural crops. Indeed, thereare mitigating circumstances in both cases:the administration largely abandoned theprotection for steel after 18 months and alsopersuaded U.S. agricultural interests toaccept sweeping reform proposals at theWTO. Nonetheless, his unfortunate conces-sions render the President vulnerable tocharges of hypocrisy as a self-proclaimed“free trader.”

If he wins a second term, PresidentBush faces three distinct trade policy chal-lenges. The first is to demonstrate the imag-ination, flexibility and courage to fashioncompromises on key issues such as agricul-ture, services and intellectual property and tosuccessfully conclude the Doha Round ofWTO negotiations. Second, while “compet-itive liberalization” is an eminently defensi-ble policy, President Bush and his advisersmust prove that it will work beyond eco-nomically insignificant bilateral agreements.That is, they must successfully conclude themore important regional Free Trade Area ofthe Americas (FTAA).

And finally, as an extension of this chal-lenge, the administration must confront theurgent necessity to get ahead of momentousevents and trends in Asia. The Asia PacificEconomic Forum (APEC), for all intentsand purposes, is moribund as a negotiatingvehicle. Conversely, nations such as Japan,South Korea and the ASEAN countries arefor the first time contemplating bilateral andsub-regional agreements that will exclude theUnited States. Washington must confrontthe increasingly bold leadership of a revital-ized Chinese foreign economic policy. Overthe next four years, it will be important forthe United States to revive APEC — possi-bly as a regular reciprocity-based FTA. Or ata minimum, the President should make itclear that the United States wants to be rep-resented at any negotiation involving the bigEast Asian economies (China, Japan, andKorea).

In trade policy, the Bush administrationhas scored several key victories — but muchremains to be done.

— Claude Barfield is a resident scholarat the American Enterprise Institute

Bush team strives for open marketsLarge Strides in Trade Policy

By Claude Barfield

yPublic Policy


yPublic Policy

For decades, lawsuit abuse has stifled thenation’s economy. Excessive lawsuitsdestroy jobs, raise prices, and threaten

access to health care for millions ofAmericans. A lawsuit is filed every twoseconds in state courts. This amounts tomore than 16 million cases per year.During the past decade alone, class actionlawsuit filings rose more than 300 percentin federal courts and more than 1,000percent in state courts.

Due to our lawsuit-happy culture, theU.S. legal system is the world’s mostexpensive: $233 billion a year are drainedfrom our economy. That amounts to morethan $3,200 a year that every Americanfamily of four is paying in higher prices,higher insurance rates and skyrocketinghealth care costs.

Lawsuit abuse has a severe effect onboth large and small American employers.For example, rampant asbestos litigationhas driven almost 70 companies into bank-ruptcy and is responsible for the loss of60,000 American jobs. A recent NERAEconomic Consulting study conducted forthe U.S. Chamber Institute for LegalReform (ILR) shows that the system iscosting small businesses an astounding $88billion a year. Business owners and workerssuffer while a small group of unscrupuloustrial lawyers grows richer by the day. Theselawyers profit from the frivolous litigationthat is clogging our courts and raidingour wallets.

The trial bar’s bravado was showcasedrecently by Fred Baron – former head of theAssociation of Trial Lawyers of America andchief fund-raiser for the Kerry-Edwardscampaign – who recently bragged that the“plaintiffs’ bar is all but running theSenate.” He later declared “jihad” onsupporters of legal reform and vowed to“fight them with everything we’ve got.”Until recently, the salvos of the trial barwent unanswered because the businesscommunity lacked a cohesive counter-attack. But times have changed.

A few years ago, the business commu-nity came to recognize that, while their vitalinterests were many, the trial bar was

focused only on protecting their financialself-interest. The bar rebuffed every piece oflegal reform legislation proposed inCongress and the states. Therefore, the U.S.Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR)emerged. Never before has the businesscommunity had such a unifying entity thatis designed to combat the trial lawyerindustry. And never before has the businesscommunity made so much headway in thefight for legal reform.

In Congress, a substantial majority ofboth the U.S. Senate and the House nowsupport reforming the class action lawsuitsystem and finding a legislative solution tothe asbestos litigation crisis. Led by ILR, atthe state level the business community isdoing things that have never been donebefore. We are shining a spotlight on theantics of trial lawyers, changing publicopinion through aggressive advertisingand grassroots campaigns, passing majorreform legislation, and most significantly,altering the judicial philosophy of stateSupreme Courts.

Earlier this year, opponents of legalreform suffered a major blow whenMississippi Gov. Haley Barbour enacted themost sweeping legal reform legislation inthe country. The Mississippi victory waslabeled by The Wall Street Journal as a “casestudy in how to break the power of the triallawyer lobby.” This success proves to legalreform supporters and opponents alike thattrue reform is possible.

Since 1999, 35 states (in addition toMississippi) have passed some form of legalreform legislation — most notably,

Alabama and Texas. The trial bar is alsoon the defensive in jurisdictions likeMadison County, Illinois, where thebusiness community has begun to shine aspotlight on the reprehensible conduct ofthe trial bar and its friends on the bench.

Our voter education program has alsosent shock waves throughout the legal com-munity. This program has resulted in fun-damentally altering the legal landscape in anumber of states. Voters across the countryare choosing Supreme Court justices, attor-neys general and other elected officials thatpromise to put an end to lawsuit abuse.

These are just a few examples of ourrecent triumphs. The fight for legal reform,however, is more than just an occasionallegislative battle or a few Supreme Courtrulings in our favor. The struggle for legalreform is an ongoing mission. It must beadopted in Washington, in the states, in thecourt houses, on the airwaves, and in thehomes of American consumers.

But without doubt, the decades-longgrip of the trial bar on our legal system isfinally being challenged. Battles are beingwon and legal reformers are steadfast intheir cause. The trial lawyers cannot with-stand the public scrutiny. They can plainlysee that American employers are united asnever before; the business communityis achieving real results in the fight to curblawsuit abuse. And America’s civil justicesystem is steadily moving toward one that issimpler, fairer and faster for everyone.

— Thomas J. Donohue is president andCEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Trial lawyers pose threat to U.S. economyReforming the Legal System

By Thomas J. Donohue


“The trial bar’s bravado was showcased recently byFred Baron – former head of the Association of TrialLawyers of America and chief fund-raiser for the Kerry-Edwards campaign – who recently bragged that the‘plaintiffs’ bar is all but running the Senate.’ He laterdeclared ‘jihad’ on supporters of legal reform.”

President George W. Bush is right toexercise caution when it comes todealing with France. Eighteen months

after the debacle at the United Nations overIraq, a perceptible chill still dominates rela-tions between the two former allies.

For President Bush and for Secretary ofState Colin Powell, the betrayal by France’sleaders is hard to forget. In the fall, 2002,preceding the U.N. debate, PresidentJacques Chirac phoned President Bush inthe Oval Office to personally assure him ofFrench support at the United Nations.

Mr. Chirac told the president that ifSaddam Hussein refused to disarm volun-tarily, France would vote with the UnitedStates to threaten the use of force. In fact,he even stated that France was ready to sendtroops as part of a U.S.-led coalition. Toprove his goodwill, Mr. Chirac offered todispatch the Chairman of the French JointChiefs to Tampa, Florida, in order to workon the details of French participation in themultinational force with U.S. CentralCommand (CENTCOM) commanders.The French general arrived in December.

Mr. Chirac’s phone call was revealedfor the first time in my book, “The FrenchBetrayal of America.” The call was clearlyintended to reassure the President thatdespite the hue and cry from the Frenchmedia elite against going to war, Mr. Chiracwould do his utmost to support an old allyacross the Atlantic. “I am speakingPresident to President, man to man,” Mr.Chirac said. President Bush respondedwarmly to the personal appeal, andremained convinced that Mr. Chirac wastelling him the truth. He would doubt thismany months later, as events proved other-wise.

On Jan. 19, 2003, on the eve of aUnited Nations debate on terrorism, Mr.Powell had a private dinner in New Yorkwith his French counterpart, ForeignMinister Dominique de Villepin. They metto discuss the final wording of a new U.N.resolution — the 18th — condemningIraqi intransigence and specifically author-izing the use of force in case of non-com-pliance with U.N. weapons inspectors. Thetwo parted company that evening with an

agreement in hand — at least, Mr. Powellbelieved so.

The next day, Mr. Powell was waitingfor Mr. Villepin to arrive at the Frenchambassador’s residence in New York for ascheduled lunch with other foreign minis-ters. The American Secretary of State wasdumbfounded when he saw Mr. Villepin onthe cable news monitor telling the worldthat France would never support the use offorce against Saddam.

Mr. Powell never forgave his “friendDominique” for lying to him; the twointeracted in a frosty manner ever since thatincident. The French betrayal was not justover “issues,” it was a personal treacherytoo.

Yet, this personal mistrust reflected thefundamental conflicting national intereststhat were driving America and Franceapart. This is a new phenomenon whichbegan at the end of the Cold War and accel-erated after the first Gulf war againstSaddam in 1991. Mr. Chirac has elevatedthis quarrel into a grand philosophicaldivide. In the final analysis, he may beright.

Given the choice between supportingfreedom or backing tyrants, France, led byMr. Chirac, has repeatedly chosen theoppressors. The French supported Saddamin order to preserve French exports. Theyare likewise buttressing the theocraticregime in Iran, which is hell-bent on devel-

oping nuclear weapons before the eyes ofinternational weapons inspectors. Does thissound familiar?

For a nation that pretends to be guid-ed by unbending principles and Cartesianlogic, the French position is rife with con-tradiction. On the one hand, the French —whether led by Mr. Chirac or his opponentson the Left — believe in subjecting nation-al sovereignty to the will of internationalinstitutions such as the United Nations.This is a matter of unwavering principlewhen the nation requiring restraint is theUnited States or Israel.

On the other hand, the French assertwith equal conviction the oppositeprinciple of the sovereignty of govern-ments: this forbids foreign interference inthe internal affairs of member states. TheFrench invoked this principle when theyopposed intervention in Iraq. Today, theyuse it to oppose any attempt by the UnitedStates or its allies to overthrow the rulingclerics in Tehran. But when the French seethat their national interest is best served byoverthrowing some petty tyrant in Africa(especially, as in the case of the Congo,where the regime is trampling on the inter-ests of French national oil companies), thencoups and assassination plots are the orderof the day.

These differences with France wouldbe comic if they did not have graverepercussions. The French are willing toundermine the effectiveness of institutionssuch as NATO, the International AtomicEnergy Agency and the U.N. SecurityCouncil just to prove a point or to showthat Paris still wields diplomatic clout. Thereal reason that the French pretend to deferto the United Nations is because they stillhave veto power.

A second Bush administration mustconfront French intransigence or seekother international fora as a means offorging alliances to combat rogue states andterrorist regimes. No American presidentcan entrust the security of our nation to abody that makes decisions by a show ofhands: those who do not have our interestsat heart cannot determine our diplomacy.As long as it goes unchecked andunpunished, the French willingness to“counter” U.S. interests internationally willonly increase.

— Kenneth R. Timmerman is theauthor of “The French Betrayal of America,”

and “Preachers of Hate: Islam and the Waron America,” both from Crown Forum

France is no longer U.S. allyFrench Betrayal

By Kenneth R. Timmerman


gForeign Affairs

“Given the choice betweensupporting freedom or backingtyrants, France has repeatedlychosen the oppressors. TheFrench supported Saddam inorder to preserve Frenchexports. They are likewisebuttressing the theocraticregime in Iran.”

Ukraine’s reformist forcesstand a good chance of win-ning the country’s upcoming

presidential elections. The successof this nation of nearly 50 million(once considered the breadbasketof Europe) is pivotal to thecontinued political and economicdevelopment of many states inthe former Soviet empire. Asneo-communist authoritarianismresurges throughout the region —especially in neighboring Russiawhere President Vladimir Putin is reconsti-tuting a police state — a democratic andprosperous Ukraine is more vital then ever.Ukraine can provide an alternative model forother fledgling post-Soviet states.

Since Yalta, Ukrainian national aspira-tions have been shaped by two principles:the liquidation of the Soviet Union and anindependent state for Ukrainians (and othercaptive nations). Ukrainians sought toachieve these goals through the exercise ofself-reliant political action.

For Ukrainians, the liquidation of theSoviet empire meant discarding not only thetotalitarian ideology of Marxism-Leninism,but the communist system itself. The latterwas characterized by bureaucratic sadismand fierce hostility toward both Christianityand the national aspirations of subject peo-ples. In particular, Soviet communismsought to crush Ukrainian democraticnationalism. This is why, for example, Sovietdictator Josef Stalin launched the greatestgenocide of the 20th century againstUkraine. He sought to destroy Ukrainiannationhood by starving its peasants to death.The terror famine of 1932-33 resulted in thesystematic murder of at least 10 millionUkrainians (other scholars assess the deathtoll at 15 million).

In 1991, in the wake of the dissolutionof the Soviet Union, Ukrainians achievedtheir long-cherished goal: a state of theirown. The nation has been independent for13 years. Yet, Ukraine is still struggling toovercome the devastating legacy of commu-nism. The death of the Soviet Union unfor-tunately did not result in the death of theMarxist mindset. Remnants of Marxism

remain in the hearts and minds of manyUkrainians. Ukraine’s President LeonidKuchma is a neo-communist at heart; hecontinues to push Kiev toward Moscow’ssphere of influence.

Also, there has been a growing assaulton basic democratic freedoms. Last year, theheadless body of anti-Kuchma journalist,Georgi Gongadze, was found in a forest out-side of Kiev. This summer, ViktorYushchenko, an arch-rival of Mr. Kuchmaand the leading reformist presidential candi-date, contracted a mysterious virus that near-ly killed him. The doctors who treated himdetected traces of poison in his stomach.

Moreover, the current Ukrainian state isnot founded on vibrant nationalism.Patriotism is not deeply rooted orwidespread. Majority public opinion isundemocratic and russified. Nationalistpolitical parties do not have widespreadsupport nor do they have political power.This, despite the fact that for the past 80years, Ukrainian nationalists spearheadedthe opposition to the Soviet occupation.Instead of being ruled by principlednationalists, the country is governed byapproximately eight non-Ukrainianoligarchic clans. Thus, today’s Ukrainehas little Ukrainian national content.Compounding these ills is a sclerotic econo-my and rampant corruption.

Ukraine, however, does not need aquick fix, cash or foreign aid. It needs long-term moral, political and strategic supportfrom the West. It needs regime change. Onlythen can it become a natural U.S. ally andfulfill its geopolitical destiny as the Israel ofthe Slavic world. Ukraine can be a pivotal

democratic and pro-Americanally in an unstable region rich inresources.

The United States can assistin the ongoing process of discred-iting and discarding the remnantsof the Marxist outlook that arestill prevalent in Ukrainian socie-ty. Marxism must be finally andconclusively unmasked as anersatz religion that sought toimpose a utopian, anti-national,suicidal delusion. The commu-

nist creed was the major conveyor of whatPope John Paul II called “the culture ofdeath” in the 20th century.

Ukrainian society needs patriotic,religious and moral renewal. Ukraine willnever become a fully functioning, healthynation-state until it confronts its communistpast. The people must overcome the vastapparatus of lies that was peddled by Soviethistoriography. The communists deliberatelyattempted to eradicate Ukraine’s distinctnational identity.

However, there has nonetheless beenconsiderable progress in the years sinceindependence. The next presidential electionon October 31st should be fair and open.If the Nasha Ukraina (Our Ukraine)bloc led by the pro-American reformer,Mr. Yushchenko, wins, this should reassurethe West and hasten Ukraine’s admissioninto the European Union.

America needs a stable and secureUkraine to act as a strategic bulwark againsta revanchist Russia. The United Statesshould do everything it can to assist theforces of reform in the current “culture war”for the hearts and minds of Ukrainians. Thehonest patriots must be given aid so they canrecapture the culture: the state will then falldemocratically into the palm of their handslike a ripe fruit. Only then will there be anend to heinous election strategies such as themurder of journalists and the poisoning ofpresidential candidates.

— Dr. Yarema Gregory Kelebay is a pro-fessor of education, philosophy and history at

McGill University in Montreal, Canada

Washington can provide moral supportUkraine Confronts Communist Past

By Yarema Gregory Kelebay


gForeign Affairs

Illus

tratio

n by

Joh

n Bo

one

Kiev★


The Just Cause

President Vladimir Putin is using therecent wave of terrorist acts in Russiaas a pretext for abandoning the

nation’s gradual march toward democracy.The government has pledged to centralizepower as a means of tightening security.This comes as a response to two terroristacts that shocked the world: Chechenfemale suicide bombers downed two airlin-ers, resulting in the death of 100 people;and an assault on a school in Beslan led tothe death of over 300 — most of whomwere children. There is widespread interna-tional sympathy for the victims of theattacks and a general outcry against theterrorist networks that are responsible. Yet,the Russian president is only compoundingthe nation’s ills by unleashing what appearsto be a naked power grab.

Mr. Putin was once considered theWest’s man in Moscow. President Busheven famously declared that he had lookedinto his Russian counterpart’s soul and hadseen that he was good. However, despiteAmerica’s fondest hopes, corruption isrampant and authoritarian rule is onceagain beginning to rear its ugly head: Mr.Putin has promised to reform the electoralsystem in a manner that benefits his party.He proposes that henceforth Russia’s 89regional governors will be elected by locallegislative assemblies rather than by popularvote; the candidates will be nominated bythe president. Furthermore, the lowerhouse of parliament, the State Duma, willbe elected from a party list rather than fromlocal constituencies. And a new agency, thePublic Chamber, will oversee governmentand law enforcement. Mr. Putin’s strategy istherefore to combat terror with counter-terror: now, the Russian people will have tofear both Chechen rebels and the growingmight of their own government.

It is evident that the proposed reformsare not just the over-zealous reaction of anation that seeks security. Mr. Putin’sgovernment has been repeatedly linkedwith the violation of civil liberties. He hasrendered the upper house of parliamentincreasingly neutral, has steadily suffocatedRussia’s free press and he persecutes those

whom he deems threatening. Themost prominent example has beenMr. Putin’s assault on the oil giant,Yukos: its billionaire tycoon, MikhailKhodorkovsky, now sits in jail on trumpedup charges reminiscent of Soviet days.Mr. Khodorkovsky’s “crime” was that hesupported Russian liberals who oppose thepresident’s rule.

Mr. Putin’s murderous ways have beenstarkly apparent for several years. Sincethe days of Joseph Stalin, no Russianpresident has been as steadfast as Mr.Putin in systematically crushing break-away ethnic minorities. The Russiancampaign in Chechnya has beenprosecuted with more vigor than everbefore: it is in fact a modern-day genocide.Even more ominous is the declaration bythe foreign minister that the Russians toowill now use the pre-emptive doctrineagainst any neighboring country that theydeem dangerous. Is this setting the stage foranother round of Russian expansion?

The Bush administration has not beenvociferous in its condemnation of Mr.Putin’s actions. The administration cannotalienate the Russian giant in an era inwhich allies are scarce, and the war onterror must take precedence. However, Mr.Putin’s actions in Chechnya augment thevery terrorist networks that President Bushis trying to defeat. The failure of theinternational community to come to theassistance of the Chechens has resulted inradicalizing their movement: manyChechens now despise not only Russia butalso the Western governments who coddleMr. Putin. Thus, Chechen rebels areincreasingly forging alliances with Muslimterrorists. Ironically, however, by support-ing Mr. Putin despite his bloody acts, theBush administration has acted contrary toits own interests in the war against terror.

The situation is even more trouble-some when one considers the widespreadnuclear proliferation in that region. Analliance of desperate Chechens, al Qaedaand weapons of mass destruction can havefar more deadly consequences than thefumbling nuclear program of a half-crazed

dictator in Iraq. Yet, if re-elected the Bushadministration will be at a loss to solve thisproblem. On the one hand, if the adminis-tration continues to support Mr. Putin, theRussian president might be able to forgea security system that — while it stiflesdemocracy — achieves a tenuous stabilityand keeps WMDs out of the hands ofterrorists. On the other hand, Americansupport for a man who cannot be trusted isreminiscent of the pact that Roosevelt andChurchill made with Stalin in World WarII: “The Man of Steel” was useful in theAllied campaign against the Nazis but hethen unleashed his own brand of terrorupon Eastern Europe and became theWest’s Public Enemy Number One. TheBush administration is already beginning toregret its unspoken bargain with Mr. Putin.And it is dubious that American leaders willbe able to do anything to reverse Russia’strajectory down the same totalitarian roadit has traveled before.

Hope for Russian democracy rests inWestern journalists who continue to shine aspotlight on the government’s misdeeds. Asa result, in an age of global communication,Russian propaganda will have limited effecton its citizens. Ultimately, however, theRussian people must resist these assaults ontheir freedom: they must act quickly to oustMr. Putin from an office whose public trusthe has violated.

— Grace Vuoto is the foreignpolicy editor of The Ripon Forum and

a professor of history at Howard University

Putin: The New StalinRussia reverts to authoritarian rule

By Grace Vuoto

Illus

tratio

n by

Joh

n Bo

one

We need to work together to make sure that Americans

have the information they need to make healthy lifestyle choices.

That’s why the Grocery Manufacturers of America is a founding

member of the American Council for Fitness & Nutrition. ACFN

collaborates with health professionals, educators, governments,

policy makers and consumers on lasting approaches to reducing

obesity. ACFN supports:

Providing parents, teachers and children with information

and resources to empower them to make the best lifestyle

choices about physical activity and nutrition.

Increasing physical activity for every American, with

an emphasis on giving students in every school the

opportunity to engage in 30 minutes of physical

activity every day.

Improving the communication of nutrition information

and distribution of education materials for parents,

teachers and community-based programs.

In addition to supporting ACFN, GMA members are offering

more healthy, nutritious foods, providing better nutrition

information to consumers and re-doubling our efforts to

ensure that we are marketing responsibly.

The food and beverage industry is doing its part in the fight

against obesity, and we are committed to helping others do

their part. You can do yours by learning more about ACFN

at www.acfn.org.

Partnersfor a

HealthyAmerica �

��

The

ForumRipon1300 L Street, NWSuite 900Washington, DC 20005

www.riponsoc.org

The Ripon Society is one of the country’s leading public policy and researchorganizations, dedicated to advancing the principles of responsible government,equality of opportunity for all citizens and winning the war on global terrorism. Joinus as we promote many of the key ideas and political strategies that will be pivotal tothe Republican agenda during this election year. For cutting-edge news commentariesand the latest information on upcoming Ripon events, visit our newWeb site at www.riponsoc.org. At our Web site you can update your membership withThe Ripon Society and read The Ripon Forum online.

The Ripon Society1300 L Street, NW

Suite 900Washington, DC 20005

202-216-1008

Join theRepublican Revolution

PERIODICALSPOSTAGE

PENDINGAT

WASHINGTON D.C.

Ripon Forum Winter 2004

Documents

Transcript of Ripon Forum Winter 2004