Politics

Sizing up the Owens years

(Andrews in Denver Post, Jan. 7) Bill Owens, you done good. Colorado is going to miss you. That’s my verdict on Colorado’s 40th governor as he leaves office Tuesday. We’ve been friends and allies (as well as infrequent adversaries) for over two decades, back to his days in the state House and mine at Independence Institute. Owens’ eight years as chief executive have seen our state thrive despite challenges. His honorable and capable leadership will wear well in history.

A free society is not defined by its government, let alone by any government official. To make politics the totality of our lives is the road to serfdom. It is people one by one, individually and with voluntary cooperation, who define America. Even to put a president’s name on an era is oversimplification. Still less can a single governor stamp his state’s destiny.

A governor can make a difference, though. That’s why we fight over electing them. And Gov. Bill Owens has made a big difference here. Either of his rivals for the Republican nomination back in 1998, the moderate Senate President Tom Norton or the conservative purist professor, Terry Walker, probably would have lost to liberal Democrat Gail Schoettler. The principles on which Owens has since governed contrast sharply with Schoettler’s – as her column on this page often attests.

Under a Gov. Gail Schoettler – or a Gov. Rollie Heath, the Boulder businessman whom Democrats ran against Owens in 2002 – Colorado would not have seen billions in tax relief, an expansion of our metro and statewide highway system, a school report card with teeth, the growth of public charter schools, and suppression of crime through tough sentencing with added prison capacity.

They would not have signed, as Owens did, bills for parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion, for defense of traditional marriage, for concealed carry of a handgun to protect yourself, for flexibility of health insurance mandates to keep costs down, and for the nation’s most generous voucher to help poor kids escape bad schools. (The state Supreme Court struck down the voucher law, however, in a political bow to teacher unions.)

Speaking of the justices, Schoettler or Heath would not have appointed such constitutionalists as Nathan Coats and Allison Eid. Nor would they have named, as Owens has, scores of appellate and trial judges who resist activism and sympathize with victims not criminals. They never would have defunded Planned Parenthood, or ended the coddling of public employee unions.

The Democrats whom Bill Owens bested for governor would not have cast almost 100 vetoes in the past two years as he did, protecting our liberty and prosperity against unwise bills ordered up by labor, educrats, trial lawyers, environmental extremists, and the minority grievance lobby – wheelhorses of the Democratic coalition.

Asked how his wife was, a man retorted: “Compared to what?” That’s the question in sizing up the Owens years, both for Republicans who are disappointed with him, and for all Coloradans as we welcome a new governor. Bill Ritter, decent but every inch a Democrat, will quickly undo many of the 2005-2006 vetoes and continue left from there. Last summer’s immigration reforms may wither legislatively this winter.

Billy O. will look better and better in retrospect. His bargain on Referendum C, bending but not breaking TABOR, turned off many of us. But Ref C was preferable to any deal Rollie Heath would have made, and we may feel nostalgic for it when Dems move to repeal the taxpayer amendment entirely.

Politics is the art of the possible, despite the occasional philosopher such as former Czech president Vaclav Havel, who titled one book “The Art of the Impossible.” Gov. Bill Owens gets pretty high marks for making the best of his circumstances to the benefit of our state. Godspeed, sir.

New Year's Resolutions for Republicans

Earnest resolutions to change and do better, upon the occasion of turning a new calendar page, don't usually appeal to me. But after a terrible 2006 for the GOP, it's time to sober up and begin anew. Here are five promises to ourselves for 2007 that I believe we ought to make as Republicans : 1- Be as devout as Washington in understanding America as a nation under God.

2- Be as forceful as Lincoln in upholding the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the political religion of the nation.

3- Be as implacable as Churchill in defending the great heritage of Western civilization and the English-speaking peoples.

4- Be as resolute as Reagan in pursuing victory over the Islamofascist enemy in World War III until, in his words, "We win and they lose."

5- Fight fiercely, cheerfully, and relentlessly for our convictions and against our enemies, with one focus each morning: "What can we do to them today?"

Ford, Reagan, and the sour '70s

Two Republicans look back and ahead Fellow Coloradan Steve Mueller (SRMueller1@msn.com) took friendly exception to my year-end email reminding Republicans that the late Gerald Ford, rocklike as he was in the political crucible of 1974, still compares unfavorably to the man who challenged him in 1976 (and Nixon in 1968), Ronald Reagan. Here's our exchange of views - JA

Andrews: Let's face it: America could have done better with its leaders in the 1970s. President Gerald Ford, rest his soul, was a good and honorable man who rose to the unsought challenge of cleaning up Richard Nixon's presidential mess. Indeed he was in some ways heroic at that hour. But as we eulogize Ford, don't forget the "road not taken" by Republicans who twice missed a chance to nominate Ronald Reagan -- instead of Nixon in 1968, then instead of Ford in 1976.

Could Reagan, if nominated, have won the White House? No one can know. But Nixon, Agnew, Ford, Rockefeller, Dole, Carter, and Mondale were not inevitable. Our country (and the free world) could have done better. That is we can know, because in 1980 we did do better. An honest reading and evaluation of the past, including its "what ifs," is essential to doing better in the future, it seems to me.

-------------------------------------

Mueller: I'd like to respond to your comment below about supporting Reagan in 1976. I was very active in Republican politics back then, and even though it was 30 years ago, I remember it like yesterday. I was a two-term State Chairman of the College Republicans, and spent about 60 hours a week working for the party for a couple of years. I ran as a Ford delegate at both the State convention and the 2nd Congressional District Convention, but Natalie Meyer organized a better campaign for Reagan in Colorado than we had for President Ford.. and Reagan won in Colorado, with the exception of Gordon Allot and John Love being elected as Ford delegates.

It was beyond my belief that certain folks in the Republican Party turned their backs on a sitting Republican president -- President Ford -- and failed to go to the polls on election day. That sort of adherence to "principle" gave us Jimmy Carter, when we could have easily had four more years of President Ford... if only they had gone to the polls. The right wing of the party, which I support and embrace, was just plain stupid in 1976 after the convention in Kansas City... and it cost the Party and the Country. Don't be blaming those who supported Ford -- your blame is completely misdirected.

Secondly, a careful post-election analysis showed that even considering the conservatives staying at home, the outcome of the election ultimately hinged on a NY State Supreme Court decision that did NOT allow John Anderson to appear on the ballot in New York. In other states, Anderson pulled enough votes from the Democrats to give the Republicans a slight majority... and the vote in NY was so close that this would surely have been the case. At the time, NY's 30 electoral votes would have provided Ford enough to shift the election to our favor instead of Carter's. (If you have any doubts about this, call Rove... he did the analysis!)

One of the main reasons I was so excited about your efforts at Judicial Term Limits was because of the NY case cited above. I know there are many other reasons why they are a good idea, but having liberals embedded in the judiciary can impact more things than most people realize.

Finally, I will indeed be mourning on Tuesday January 2 during our National Day of Mourning for President Ford. I met him several times, I worked hard for him and the Party, I respected him, and I will miss him.

--------------------------------------------

Andrews: Steve, thanks for the vivid bit of history. I was far less involved that year. But you are reading too much into my "could have done better" remark. There is no word of blame in what I wrote, if you want to look at it again. My point was simply that the deserved tributes to Jerry Ford shouldn't float in a vacuum of disregard for what other paths the GOP and the nation might have followed in those years.

I gave my best as a staffer for Nixon and Agnew, but objectively it's not very hard to wish that Reagan's gifts and beliefs, not Nixon's, had been at the helm from 1969 on. That in turn would have unfolded a scenario where Ford never moved to the executive branch at all. You get the idea.

It was risky for me to verbalize this whole line of reasoning in the days just after an honored ex-President's passing. Your rebuke, even if based on a misunderstanding, is fair and I accept it.

--------------------------------------------

Mueller: I do agree with you that the tributes to President Ford shouldn't float in a vacuum of disregard for the other potential paths the GOP and the nation might have taken. I wanted to enlighten you (in case this comes up on the radio) that you seemed to be overlooking the most obvious one -- that the Reaganites had gone to the polls to support the party in 1976, and we could have had a Republican president instead of Jimmy Carter. I can name several activists from the time who told me that they voted for Anderson, because they just couldn't vote for Ford... who was our party's nominee, but not perceived as conservative enough by some. (Unjustifiably, they thought it was an ok strategy since they weren't voting for a Democrat.)

I've NEVER voted against (or failed to cast a vote for) a Republican whom I've known to be a good and honorable person, and I have a difficult time understanding or respecting my fellow Republicans who don't support our general election nominees, particularly from the old days when we enjoyed a stronger caucus system. (There is less scrutiny of our candidates as the system moves away from caucuses, so there is a greater likelihood of some questionable candidates moving forward.)

These thoughts still haunt me as I think about this year's HD38 race, and I saw a bunch of supposed Republicans publicly endorsing Joe Rice - who I'm sure is a decent person, but won't be adhering to a Republican philosophy during his tenure at the legislature. (I just wish all the Republicans would all adhere to the philosophy to which they purportedly subscribe.)

There is a lot of work to do to turn around the tide that swept the Democrats into office this year. I'm pretty sure that seeking a higher level of philosophical purity is a better idea than being fuzzy about our values, so using the passing of President Ford as a catalyst for a discussion might be worthwhile. We certainly need to identify and mobilize those people that support Republican values, and many need to be reminded what those values are. Good luck, John!

Two cheers for newest State Rep

Matt Dunn will serve out the final month of a legislative term for Rep. Joe Stengel (R-Littleton), who quit early to avoid the lobbying restrictions that take effect soon under Amendment 41. The past year has been a political roller coaster for Dunn, a former Lincoln Fellow of the Claremont Institute who helped me establish the institute's Denver office and my radio show. The rookie candidate tied for first at the Republican assembly convened to nominate Stengel's would-be successor, then won his August primary before losing the November election to Democrat Joe Rice. The local GOP organization honored him with interim duties to fill the vacancy until Rice takes over on the legislature's opening day, Jan. 20. Note: the Rocky Mountain News story of Matt's Dec. 28 swearing-in erred in suggesting he and I aren't acquainted -- we're old friends. It was another new member present that day, Steve King, whose nonrecognition I was referring to.

All eyes on Congress

Will Perlmutter & Lamborn measure up? (Andrews in Denver Post, Dec. 3) Meet Diana DeGette, Mark Udall, John Salazar, and Ed Perlmutter, majority Democrats in Colorado’s congressional delegation. Meet Tom Tancredo, Marilyn Musgrave, and Doug Lamborn, minority Republicans in the delegation.

Last month these seven Coloradans were elected to represent the other five million of us in Washington. Next month they will swear an oath to the Constitution and join the most important legislative body on earth, trustees for the nation’s liberty, security, and prosperity – and for all mankind’s hope of freedom. We need the best each can give.

It’s odd, when you think about it: sending a handful of our fellow citizens off to the Atlantic seaboard to make laws for you and me here in the Rockies, to impose taxes on us and determine what the state gets back (only 79 cents on the dollar at present, chew on that). Yet as I argued here on Nov. 5, representative government in this continental republic has worked about as well as the Founders hoped.

It must work even better in coming years, however, if America is to avoid the historical pattern of great nations declining from softness at home and weakness abroad after a couple of centuries on the rise. Such is the challenge confronting Congress when Speaker Pelosi bangs the gavel in January.

Assembling at Washington in 2007, our House members won’t face the hazards of their predecessors at Philadelphia in 1777 – who risked a British noose – but the stakes are huge nonetheless. With party control shifting, the President beleaguered, the war going badly and our enemies emboldened, the world will be watching.

So should we. In the spirit of the season, I’m making a list and checking it twice, with a particular eye on the two freshmen, Ed Perlmutter of Wheat Ridge and Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs. I have respect for both from serving with them in the state Senate, and high expectations as they head east. Here’s my open letter to each:

************ Dear Ed: In Congress, please stay as you were in our judiciary committee days, a thoughtful man of conscience as well as a solid Democrat. Don’t go too party-line or too liberal back there. A draft, higher energy prices, and bugging out of Iraq aren’t votes Colorado wants you to cast. (Tell me you weren’t for Murtha as majority leader.)

You won’t likely desert your caucus as Nighthorse Campbell did, but do buck them sometimes, Ken Salazar-style. As for the budget, our state was getting $1 of spending for every $1 of federal taxes before my party took the House in 1994. Work on that, will you? – Your fellow May 1 birthday guy, John.

************ Dear Doug: Bravo for a gritty win despite treachery from Congressman Hefley and some other Republicans. Forward now with magnanimity; legislating well is the best revenge. Remember your bill that named the Ronald Reagan Highway, and fight as the Gipper did for the undiluted conservative agenda, economic and social issues alike.

Major in national security and the Islamist threat, befitting our military-heavy state and the nation’s peril in World War III. Champion missile defense; someone must. Keep pressure on the Dems, ally with the Republican Study Committee and Mike Pence (tell me you voted for him over Boehner), and stand with Tancredo and Musgrave. Colorado needs all three of you full strength. – Your brother in the battle of ideas, John.

************ Mail matters, a member quickly learns in the state legislature (where all of our congressional delegation once served) and on Capitol Hill. Your communication to their offices can help swing crucial votes. Write Santa for Christmas if you like – but for a happier new year, drop a line also to Diana, Mark, John, Ed, Tom, Marilyn, and Doug.