Hey GOP: Stand your ground

By Tom Tancredo Editor: We at Backbone America have had our concerns about whether former Rep. Tom Tancredo should have jumped in the recent Colorado gubernatorial race, and about how he then campaigned, and about his uncertain return to the Republican Party. But if such displays of backbone as this column are result of his stance (for now) as a friendly outsider to the GOP, we can only applaud. The piece first appeared on WorldNetDaily.com, Nov. 13, under the title, "Bipartisan games or downsizing government?" Well said, Tom!

Bipartisanship is greatly overrated as a formula for good government. Every major government boondoggle in recent memory was launched with bipartisan enthusiasm. Bipartisanship has its role in the day-to-day affairs of government. What separates genuine bipartisanship from bogus bipartisanship is one thing: honesty.

In Congress or any state legislature, it is normal for hundreds of bills to be passed with bipartisan support because much of government consists of making adjustments or improvements in ongoing programs that have broad public support. When dealing with the core functions of government, we seldom see sharp divisions along party lines.

But what we see today is a different thing. Bipartisanship is being urged on Republicans not as a "let's split the difference" compromise for a specific bill but as a principle for shaping the very definition of the problem to be solved. For example, if Republicans agree that the problem to be solved in a budget crisis is a "shortfall in revenues," then the compromise solution will inevitably be some level of tax increases to make up the "shortfall." This then becomes a debate over how to finance the growth of government, not how to reduce the size of government.

The Republican Party won victories in congressional and state races by promising to roll back Obamacare and other expansions of government. If they now squander those victories by abandoning the small-government agenda, they will deserve the scorn and ridicule of not only tea-party activists but concerned citizens everywhere.

In Colorado, the state now has a liberal Democratic governor-elect, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, and a split legislature. Republicans are in the majority in the House and Democrats control the Senate. In this situation, neither party can control the legislative agenda. The question conservatives in Colorado are asking is: Will the legislative agenda become truly "bipartisan," or will Republicans be maneuvered into debating the details of compromises on the Democratic agenda?

To have a chance at genuine compromise and honest bipartisanship, Republicans must first have an agenda of their own. When leading Colorado Republicans like former Gov. Bill Owens join the Democratic governor-elect's transition team, that serves to give the Democrats' agenda a patina of "bipartisanship" at the outset. When the Democratic agenda is baptized a "bipartisan agenda" on Day 1, by not only the liberal media and interest groups but by a group of co-opted Republicans, legislators who don't buy into that agenda can be easily stigmatized as "partisan obstructionists."

Selling out your party's platform and policy agenda before the first shot is fired is a form of pre-emptive compromise that ought to be called by its right name: surrender. It is not bipartisanship in search of genuine solutions; it is gamesmanship in search of favorable press clippings. Such behavior may be acceptable to "party elders" who are accountable to no one, but it is not acceptable for elected representatives sent to the capitol to tackle tough problems and seek real solutions based on constitutional principles.

As other conservative leaders have observed, Big Government is on autopilot and programmed for a crash. Republicans need to find the off switch. Government needs a fundamental change in direction, not a spare fuel tank.

In Colorado, for example, Republicans in the state legislature would be smart to offer their own agenda as quickly as possible and not wait for the Democrats' "partnership" agenda, which will validate the status quo and seek "innovative" and "creative" (read: deceptive) ways to finance the continued growth of government. They could start with proposing a voucher system for public schools, adoption of the federal E-verify program for denying jobs to illegal aliens, a 10 percent across-the-board reduction in each state agency's budget except transportation, and phasing out state support for the state university system.

The clock is running out for the Republican Party. If they do not begin delivering on their promises, the grass-roots citizens' rebellion that swept them into office will find another vehicle for restoring constitutional liberties. In football terms, it is the middle of the fourth quarter, the score is Big Government 24, Small Government 3, and a field goal is not an acceptable play call.

Tom Tancredo (tgtancredo@gmail.com) is a former five-term congressman from Colorado, 2008 candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and 2010 independent candidate for governor. He currently serves as chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation and co-chairman of TeamAmericaPac. Tancredo is the author of "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security."

Well done, voters!

The Republican congressional landslide resulted from a "failure to communicate empathy," not a rejection of Obama's policies, says Susan Barnes-Gelt in the November round of Head On TV debates. Okay, says John Andrews, if this shellacking was an empathy deficit, Katrina was a light breeze. John on the right, Susan on the left, also go at it this month over Colorado election results in state and federal races, the media's role in 2010 campaigns, and the wide-open contest for Mayor of Denver as Hickenlooper moves up. Head On has been a daily feature on Colorado Public Television since 1997. Here are all five scripts for November: 1. OBAMA’S NEW REALITY

Susan: The victorious Republican party appears to be tone deaf. Interpreting election results as repudiation of Obama’s policy, is nuts. Results reflect anger and fear about jobs, Wall Street and the failure of Obama’s team to communicate empathy outside the beltway. Despite the numbers, R’s are off to a bad start.

John: The President’s electoral shellacking – as he called it – was no more an empathy deficit than Katrina was an afternoon breeze. The American people fired Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats in record numbers because they don’t like reckless spending, higher taxes, huge deficits, and Obamacare. Republicans are on probation, but we’re back.

Susan: Interesting, because the American people don't feel like they're back. Unless you count the top 2 percent of the richest -tax cuts for millionaire/billionaires is not economic stimulus, creates no jobs, builds no public infrastructure. As Warren Buffet says, "guys like me can afford it."

John: Democrats with unchecked power in Washington the past two years put America on track to become a fiscal train wreck like Greece. The Republican House by itself can’t reverse that, but they can moderate Obama’s drunken spending and resist his job-killing war on free enterprise. Well done, voters!

2. COLORADO ELECTION RESULTS - FEDERAL

Susan: The US Senate race was Ken Buck’s to lose – and he did! Bennet won by a close margin because Buck pandered to the wing-nuts and tea partiers. Perlmutter won his race by a substantial margin because he worked hard. Markey and Salazar were tea party casualties.

John: Colorado’s House delegation, now 4-3 Republican, will defend our liberty and prosperity by standing against European-style socialism. Cory Gardner on the eastern plains and Scott Tipton on the western slope will represent us well. Michael Bennet, Obama’s puppet in the Senate, beat Ken Buck with the politics of personal destruction.

Susan: Puleeze. It's that kind of thinking that led to the decline of the Roman and British empires. The notion that private interest trumps public benefit is irrelevant in the face of diminishing global resources. Partisan bickering isn't the solution.

John: The fall of Rome occurred when a virtuous republic of self-reliant freemen and citizen soldiers became a decadent despotism that deified its leaders and quit defending its borders. Americans took a step back from that slippery slope on election day. What you call partisan bickering, I call democracy – thank goodness!

3. COLORADO ELECTION RESULTS - STATE

Susan: Hickenlooper won because your party self-destructed. Down ticket candidates Kennedy and Buescher lost because voters are cranky about the status quo. Hick will have an easier time with a divided legislature. His command of the bully pulpit is superb, though he’ll have to grow a thick skin.

John: For six years Democrats dominated the gold dome. Now divided government returns, and for the public interest that’s good. Congratulations to GOP House Speaker Frank McNulty, Treasurer Walker Stapleton, and Secretary of State Scott Gessler. And to Teflon John Hickenlooper, the first Denver mayor to become governor since the 1880s.

Susan: Hick is more than non-partisan. He's a-partisan. His ability to get along with everyone, in the interest of solving problems for Coloradans will set the bar. If hyper-partisans can't rise to the challenge, voters will boot 'em. Stapleton and Gessler will disappoint - big time.

John: Hickenlooper is lucky as much as anything. First the incumbent governor washed out. Then his three Republican opponents stumbled over each other like Curly, Moe, and Larry. Teflon John now faces a huge job to clean up the budget and revive the economy. I think you’ll see he’s all too human.

4. OPEN RACE FOR DENVER MAYOR

John: Hickenlooper will be the first governor in a century elected from the Denver mayor’s office. Voters could do themselves a favor by replacing him with the first mayor in half a century elected from the Republican side. The city is overtaxed, unsafe, and losing jobs. Denver needs a Rudy Giuliani.

Susan: John, you know Denver political offices are non-partisan. That’s why it works. Taxes and fees in Denver are the lowest in the metro area, because the city has the largest commercial districts. Denver’s next mayor must have a clear vision, a thick skin and an iron backbone.

John: I’m a suburban guy, but Denver’s vitality is important to all Coloradans. Economic and cultural leadership moving from the core city to the outer ring isn’t good. So who do you like for mayor, Susan – Chris Romer, Michael Hancock, James Mejia, Carol Boigon? Maybe you should run.

Susan: I'd love to run- articulate a bold vision, set clear priorities, inspire people to be the best they can be. Truth is, the only thing holding me back is finding someone more focused, ambitious and disciplined than I, to serve.

5. HOW WELL DID THE MEDIA PERFORM IN THIS CAMPAIGN?

John: I’m glad the political ads are finally off the air, but I sure love our free press. In Russia or Venezuela, critics of the regime are muzzled or murdered. In America, the Supreme Court protects their freedom of speech, and we the voters can throw the bums out. What a country, Susan,

Susan: The bigger problem is who pays for political ads – independent, anonymous committees spent $30 million+ in Colorado. Special interests owned the debate – on both sides of the aisle, to no one’s benefit. Lack of disclosure and transparency do one thing that’s bad for D’s and R’s –abet voter cynicism!

John: There was no cynicism in this year of the Tea Party. This was a free society and representative government at its best. New media helped empower political outsiders as never before. Thoughtful discussion in Colorado suffered with the absences of the Rocky Mountain News, but talk radio and TV did their part.

Susan: Thoughtful talk radio and Cable news - an oxymoron! Opinionators passing themselves off as journalists -whether it's Fox News or Keith Olbermann -does little to advance civic dialogue or critical thinking. Today's media (lame stream?) is looking for its soul.

Two cheers for the two parties

(Denver Post, Nov. 7) Chastened.

The one-word opening paragraph was a Denver trademark for the late, great Gene Amole, columnist for a paper that is no more, classical DJ for a station that is no more. You missed something special if you weren’t around when he was writing for the Rocky and broadcasting for KVOD. Old Gene would not have gotten too wound up about the raucuous 2010 campaign and the odd election that mercifully terminated it on Tuesday. Neither should we. In electing some honorable people to represent us, while leaving the big political parties chastened, we did a pretty good day’s work for self-government.

The improvement was incremental, but all durable improvements in a free society are. Americans know that in our bones. It’s one of the things that make us a conservative-leaning nation. We instinctively sense the advantages of divided government as a brake on official mischief. Hence the wave of ticket-splitting in Colorado last week.

The same voters who extended Democrats’ lease on the governor’s office and the US Senate seat, elevating John Hickenlooper and retaining Michael Bennet, crossed over to support Republican challengers for two congressional seats and two constitutional posts – favoring Cory Gardner over Betsy Markey, Scott Tipton over John Salazar, Walker Stapleton over Treasurer Cary Kennedy and Scott Gessler over Secretary of State Bernie Buescher.

Citizens wisely refuse to give more than two cheers for either the Republicans or the Democrats as a trustworthy political brand. Each has forfeited trust on too many occasions. The chastening effect upon both parties’ leadership is only an inference so far. But if they’re not doing some introspection after this tough election cycle, the denial is beyond incurable.

Dems had a governor, in Bill Ritter, so vulnerable they had to hustle him offstage. The GOP had two gubernatorial finalists, in Scott McInnis and Dan Maes, so flawed that a force of nature named Tom Tancredo swooshed into the vacuum. Speaker Terrance Carroll’s majority in Denver got a similar pink slip to that of Nancy Pelosi in Washington. Republicans put a weak appointed senator seemingly down for the count, but they couldn’t knock him out.

As the red and blue twin dinosaurs lumbered through their paces again this year, I think something encouraging began to happen in people’s attitude about the whole ritual. Too often, politics is like that king in the Book of Daniel who conditioned his subjects to kneel before the golden idol on a trumpet call. It’s a con game to distract us from self-reliance. A better politics happens when folks get up on their hind legs and take responsibility. And isn’t that what the Tea Party and the 912 groups are all about?

Within a month of Barack Obama’s inaugural address calling for “a new era of responsibility,” many people began to conclude that his transformative collectivist vision for America was actually the height of irresponsibility. Grassroots organizing took off, inspired by the patriots of 1773 and soaked with bipartisan skepticism for government insiders. Colorado’s cranky electorate with its mixed verdict on Nov. 2 is one result.

Personal responsibility is the price of individual liberty. Personal responsibility is the antithesis of paternalistic bureaucracy, paralytic regulation, PC thought control, and profligate fiscal follies. It underlies the “Send me” spirit of the Tea Party. The new political force preaching responsibility and repentance to both parties, envisaged in a series of columns here since mid-2007 (I called it Element R) is now upon us.

Obama’s policy indiscipline and blame habit have long since discredited his faux-responsible pose. Moving into 2011, Americans will insist on the real deal. The Republican-Democrat duopoly, resuming business with a plate-full of state and federal problems, is on notice from the responsibility movement to get serious. That, or face an even stiffer chastisement next time.

Backbone Voter Guide 2010

My thanks to a number of fellow conservatives who have called or emailed to ask how I'm voting on this year's candidates, judges, and ballot issues. I am honored by your interest in my perspective. The 2010 ballot is a tougher one than usual for me, because of the train wreck in our race for governor and because of three taxpayer initiatives where the effect doesn't measure up to the intent. That said, here's the rundown: * On candidates, as in every election since coming of age in 1966, I will vote an almost-straight Republican ticket. The state and nation need GOP leadership to put the brakes on runaway government right now, even if my party hasn't fully learned its lesson from the mistakes of prior years.

* On judges, also in keeping with my custom of many years, I will politely vote no on retaining all of them. Supreme Court justices Bender, Rice, and Martinez have played loose with the constitution and richly deserve firing. On the lower courts, even the responsible judges need a reminder that their irresponsible colleagues have discredited the entire judiciary with much of the public.

* On the ballot issues, I will vote yes on all but 102, which is a dishonest money-play by the bail bond companies. I strongly support the pro-life impact of 62 and the pushback against Obamacare in 63. On 60, 61, and 101, the tax measures, I concede that if enacted, their poor drafting would make for poor public policy -- but as they won't possibly pass, my vote becomes a protest message to the anti-TABOR forces with their persistent disregard for Colorado's fiscal future.

* For governor, with regret, I will cast no vote this year. Character, competence, conservative principles, and continuity of institutions -- the four-part test I impose for Colorado's chief executive -- isn't nearly met by any of the major candidates: Republican Dan Maes, Democrat John Hickenlooper, or independent Tom Tancredo. This is not personal, and I respect those who reach a different conclusion. But it grieves me to see the inflamed emotions and rule-or-ruin frenzy this race has aroused. A neighbor recently told me the state faces "hell" if her man doesn't win. How childish. Thank goodness this will soon be over and our polity (my party in particular) can calm down and start to heal.

* My further views on the governor's race are in the Timely & Relevant section, home page top left on this website, and in an Oct. 10 column for the Denver Post. Excellent arguments for and against the three tax measures by Fred Holden (pro) and Mark Hillman (con) are on the Centennial Institute blog.

* As stated at the outset, it's no fun to feel so torn on important decisions such as these. I take comfort in the maxim of John Evans, a fellow state senator, who used to say, "Some of my friends are in favor, and some of my friends are opposed, and as for me -- I'm with my friends."

* Thank you again for asking about my approach in this (as usual) "most important election of our lifetime." And thank you for taking seriously our right and responsibility of self-government. Only by our stewardship (and God's grace) will America remain the last best hope of earth.

The people vs. the professors

(Denver Post, Oct. 24) "Beware intellectuals. Not merely should they be kept away from the levers of power. They should be objects of suspicion when they offer collective advice. Intellectuals habitually forget that people matter more than concepts and must come first. The worst of all despotisms is the heartless tyranny of ideas." So writes British historian Paul Johnson on the last page of "Intellectuals," his 200-year survey of the damage done by brainy elites in public life. That was in 1988, and the hit parade hasn’t stopped. A sequel could chronicle Hillary Clinton's debacle as health-care czar, Al Gore's phony climate panic, the failed presidential candidacies of uber-smart guys Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, and Barack Obama learning the hard way that being president requires different skills than being, in Sarah Palin's words, "a professor at a lectern." Keynesian wonks, led by Larry Summers of Harvard, assured us that throwing a trillion or so at liberal pet projects would keep unemployment under 8 percent. IQ-meisters from all the right medical schools, tricked out in borrowed lab coats for the photo op, endorsed central planning for one-sixth of the economy, the better to keep us all healthy – until we flunk Rahm Emanuel’s brother’s cost-benefit test, at which time say goodbye.

From the massive wave of disillusionment at such policy quackery, reaching into the very core of Obama’s support – exemplified by Velma Hart, a woman, an African American, and a government employee, asking him on national TV, “Is this my new reality?” – comes the thundering electoral rebuke to his leadership that everyone now expects on Nov. 2. The Oz moment is over, and the unheroic little man behind the curtain is concealed no more.

The Tea Party movement is evidence of millions of Americans losing patience with the beneficent rule of enlightened experts that has been progressivism’s holy grail since the days of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and raucously agreeing with Paul Johnson that “a dozen people picked at random on the street are as likely to offer sensible views on moral and political matters as a cross-section of the intelligentsia.” MORE likely, the Glenn Beck insurgents would roar, and they wouldn’t exempt the Republican intelligentsia either.

But here in Colorado, during an election that broadly pits the people vs. the professors, you’d have to say that Republican CU regent Steve Bosley, an aw-shucks businessman, is better positioned than Harvard grad and Boulder law prof Melissa Hart, his Democratic challenger, in their race for a term of six years in the at-large seat. He needs that edge, because she’s no lightweight, having won a 2008 campaign to block color-blind college admissions. And the right needs him, because the campus left has big plans if the GOP’s 5-4 majority is reversed.

According to a regents’ vote last February, “diversity of political perspectives… to ensure the rich interchange of ideas” is a guiding principle for the University of Colorado. CU’s website features a link to President Bruce Benson saying so. Convulse with laughter if you must – I did – but then consider that having the governing board on record for such an aspiration is at least a start, even though faculty conservatives remain scandalously scarce up there.

And next consider that if Professor Hart becomes Regent Hart, this academic heresy is over, kaput. Nanny McPhee is having none of it. “It is very unfortunate when intellectual diversity gets mixed up with political diversity,” she told a reporter. Translation: we’ll diversify our post-modernism between Foucault and Derrida, but no way we’re cohabiting this campus with limited-government reactionaries and pro-life primitives.

Will the professorial crowd or the populists prevail? Does San Fran Nancy fall to Ohio John Boehner, bookish Hickenlooper to biker Tancredo, urbane Bennet to bluejeans Buck, faculty-club Hart to gun-club Bosley? In ten days we’ll know.