The political landscape of Wisconsin didn’t change much as a result of the costly and noisy recall elections. But that doesn’t mean some important lessons weren’t learned. Elections this historic always yield important information and raise intriguing possibilities about how future political battles will play out. In a state historically split nearly 50-50 along ideological, if not partisan, lines with independents often progressively minded, the summer campaign offers some lessons that conservatives can take heart from.

Even though Democrats are touting their ability to knock off two incumbent state senators as a major success in the face of failed GOP attempts to go after three Democratic senators, Democratic gains are shallow. Every incumbent senator who faced a recall challenge (regardless of party) survived except when a massive personal scandal or political earthquake hit. Sen. Randy Hopper’s ill-timed affair with a staffer exploded early in the recall cycle and irreparably damaged him politically. Sen. Dan Kapanke’s district had for years been trending Democrat, and his personal connection to voters was not enough to outweigh the long-developing party shift that finally flipped the seat’s party affiliation.

One thing that was successful in the recalls was the use of Wisconsin as a test-state for the 2012 election. Voters were the subject of numerous tests of message strategies, volunteer mobilization tactics, and voter registration and turnout models that could be used nationwide next year. By the final weeks of the campaign, both sides had developed targeted messages detailing how the issues in question impacted people’s communities and everyday lives. The election was nationalized in importance, but the message and tactics were localized in their application.

Leftwing groups both in and outside the state gave the election everything they had. Total spending for the nine elections swelled to nearly $40 million, most of it being raised and spent by unions and other opponents of Governor Walker’s reforms. It was not unreasonable in their minds to think that voters could be persuaded to, after a mere 7 months of governing, give up on their mandate to Republicans in November of 2010 and return to their progressive ways typified by the 2006 and 2008 elections.

The left was wrong.

Wisconsin voters said very convincingly this summer that they were not ready to return to the era of governing that created higher taxes, huge deficits, excessive regulations, and more people employed in government than in the state’s shrinking manufacturing sector. The reforms pushed through by a conservative governor and Republican legislators involved difficult decisions. Nobody told Wisconsinites that change towards a state government that is responsible and friendly to job creation would be easy. But they understand that it has to be done.

Fascinatingly, the one issue that sparked the large protests in the state capitol and led to the recalls was the one issue the left didn’t talk about very much during the summer. Instead of being the third-rail of state politics, collective bargaining reform became an issue that supporters, and not opponents, spent time talking about. The savings created for local governments and the equality with comparable private sector employees that it imposed on public employees made sense in the minds of voters. If Wisconsin voters can see the common sense of collective bargaining reform, nothing but political ineptitude should prevent legislators and governors in other states from embracing similar reforms.

Some questions remain unanswered by the recalls. With an approval rating of 50% and a Democratic Party battered by repeated losses, will President Obama carry the state next year? Will unions that have lost time and time again over the past 10 months be able to muster the strength they need to wage a full battle statewide in 2012? Vast amounts of money have been spent to no significant gain by the left; will they be able to pour that much money into the state for the next cycle? Those questions will have to go unanswered until next year. For now, at least, Wisconsinites can return to their regular summer activities having beaten back a national attempt to reverse the reforms they want.

Orginally posted to Media Trackers.

Former Governor and Ambassador Jon Huntsman (R)

By: Brian Sikma

Mitt Romney is probably feeling pretty good right about now. He’s been running for President long enough to be the de facto front runner which carries more downsides than upsides at this point. A persistent problem he’s had to face is that he’s just too boring. The reaction of a typical crowd of the GOP faithful is something mixed between “sure, he’s smart but he’s also distant,” and “yeah, he sounds conservative but how long is that going to last?” To be fair, Romney isn’t a far leftist even though he’s not been a consistent conservative in the past.

But just why might he be feeling good? Well, he’s no longer the most boring candidate in the race. That distinction must be awarded to Jon Huntsman, a yet-to-be-defined candidate surrounded by some of the top veterans of McCain presidential campaigns. Huntsman has a particular allure right now because he’s a fresh face, someone who’s not been publicly working for the past 6 years on a national campaign. However, when it comes to frankly nailing down the issues and explaining where he stands, Huntsman needs to switch from diplomat mode to candid fellow American. It’s certainly an image his jean jackets and Reaganesque campaign announcement venue are trying to reinforce.

In a smart move the Huntsman campaign has placed videos on the campaign website’s homepage featuring the candidate talking about important issues. People don’t care about reading white papers, and short videos are a great way to share where you stand on the issues. But, in those videos you’ve got to connect with voters and use the language they use. In tackling the biggest issue of the 2012 cycle, Jobs, Huntsman starts his video with the following line:

“Jobs will be a function of our relative competitive position as a country. . .”

Uh, what did he just say? (I actually went back and replayed that first line when I watched the video for the first time.) Jobs will be a function of our relative competitive position as a country? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? The average American catching that on the move during their busy day is going to ask “Okay, does that mean I will or I will not get my job back if you are our next President?”

I’m not underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Far from it. What Huntsman said is true as an academic description of one of the challenges we face as a nation in creating jobs. But as a prescriptive statement offering a solution, or as an identity statement sharing voter sentiment, it’s worthless.

The American people are right now looking for a candidate who 1) understands their problems, and 2) has a pointed message about solving that problem. They are not ripe for demagogues to dupe them into believing shallow solutions exist for deep problems (recent elections have proven that), but they want something simple and straightforward in a candidate.

Huntsman is a new candidate on the national scene, and there is reason to expect that his message about jobs and other issues will sound less wonkish and more straightforward in the future. But until a major candidate is able to smartly identify themselves with the problems of the American people and address them in a way that sounds like their neighbor talking about solving a problem in the neighborhood, Republicans are going to lose valuable message time and opportunity. The message in 2012 can’t be boring if conservatism is to make a comeback and carry the White House.

Because the new policy resulted in an adjustment to the way the state of Indiana allocates Medicaid funds that originate at both the federal and state level, it had to be sent to the national Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) for review. CMS has the authority to accept or reject any amendments that states make to their Medicaid programs. On June 1st Dr. Donald Berwick, the Obama Administration’s CMS administrator, notified Indiana officials that the new policy is not acceptable, and will subject the state to financial penalties if its not rescinded.

Baring a successful appeal of the administration’s decision, the cost of maintaining the newly enacted law could be upwards of $4 billion per year. That’s the amount the state annually receives in Medicaid funding from the federal government. By threatening to cut off all Medicaid funding, the Obama administration is forcing Hoosier officials to chose between protecting life and maintaining the financial viability of the state budget and its Medicaid program.

To explain his decision, Berwick argued (document download) that the new Indiana law conflicts with a federal statute that protects the freedom of Medicaid beneficiaries to chose their own service providers so long as the providers are professional qualified. “This SPA [the new Indiana policy] would eliminate the ability of Medicaid beneficiaries to receive services from specific providers for reasons not related to their qualifications to provide such services.”

But such reasoning raises an important question. Is Planned Parenthood really professional qualified to provide family planning services? State Rep. Wes Culver (R-Goshen) pointed out that “we have to remember that Planned Parenthood has been caught on undercover video counseling clients on how to circumvent the law regarding men having sex with underage girls.” Indeed, and that brings into doubt their professional and legal credibility to be a Medicaid approved service provider. Shouldn’t states be given the freedom to hold service providers in their state accountable to high standards of professionalism? One must wonder what CMS would say if a pro-life medical organization that was party to some fraud was given a free pass to receive millions of dollars in Medicaid funds.

The CMS also argues that to deny Planned Parenthood the ability to be service provider would be tantamount to denying Medicaid beneficiaries access to important services. Per Berwick’s letter, “[s]uch a restriction would have a particular effect on beneficiaries’ ability to access family planning providers.” Certainly it would be wrong to deny beneficiaries access to vital services based on the political views of the service provider. However, there is no place in Indiana where Planned Parenthood’s clinics stand as the sole provider of vital, non-abortion family planning and women’s health services. Every woman in the state of Indiana has access to a women’s health provider besides Planned Parenthood. There is no denial of access to important services under the present law.

At its heart, this debate is about 10th Amendment prerogatives serving as a battle ground for the issue of protecting human life at its very earliest stages. So far legislators who supported the new measure have not signaled any willingness to concede the issue. Sen. Jim Banks (R-Columbia City) noted, “Clearly President Obama is the most pro-abortion President in our nation’s history and he will stop at nothing to prevent our efforts to defund public funding of Planned Parenthood in Indiana.” Banks also expressed his support for Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s effort to defend the law “against the federal government’s overreach into what is clearly a state prerogative.”

$4 billion is a lot of money and to blackmail a state with that amount, particularly during difficult economic times, is a major power play by individuals desperate to push an anti-life agenda. Let’s hope that Indiana lawmakers continue to realize the stakes of what is involved and chose to hold the line in defense of life. If they don’t hold out, the country will know what kind of price tag states are willing to pay to surrender their Constitutional prerogatives and abandon the unborn. To falter in this would be to fail the very core principles that define what makes America great.

Much ink has been spilled over how Republicans and conservatives have handled Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal to reform Medicare. No one, not even the most liberal Democrat, believes that Medicare does not face a real problem. The program is spending more than it takes in, and will not last for much longer unless serious reforms are implemented. However, the when, what and how of reform is certainly up for debate.

Unfortunately for the American people, an entire political party has refused to put forward a real plan for reforming Medicare. Similarly unfortunate is the fact that the other major political party is split over the issue. It is true that any time you put forward a specific plan with specific numbers attached to it, you are taking a political risk. That is the nature of politics, and it’s not a particularly bad thing.

What becomes a problem is when an issue becomes so overhyped with apocalyptic rhetoric that reform in any direction is viewed as an attempt to undermine what is good for the American people. Conservatives are facing such a problem now. Liberal Democrats have consistently failed to address the problem of entitlement reform. Whether it was President Bush’s attempt to reform Social Security in 2005, or the present Medicare debate, the standard liberal tactic has been to label any attempt to reform these programs as a direct assault on the future of the American people.

Click here to continue reading the full article posted at the Madison Project.

After a legislative session with its share of landmark policy decisions, I was eager to return home, get back to my family and my regular job and take a break from policy battles.

Unfortunately, the Indiana Supreme Court had other plans.

The outrage rolling across the state against an Indiana Supreme Court ruling has been one of the few things to unite people from different political backgrounds. With just a few simple words, Justice Steven David launched a devastating attack on individual Hoosiers’ liberties:

“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We believe however that a right to resist unlawful police entry is… incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

Contrast Justice David’s words with the actual text of the 4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

I will not short change the concerns about the specifics of the case that brought this matter to the attention of the Indiana Supreme Court. Domestic violence is a serious matter and law enforcement officials must be free to protect citizens in accordance with the rights and restrictions placed on these officers by the Constitution. Unfortunately, the court’s ruling in this case will do very little to protect citizens from the horrors of domestic violence and might even open the door to abuse by some law enforcement officials.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller went on the record stating the court has ruled too broadly. Newton County’s Prosecutor Jeff Drinski issued a statement clarifying that random “door-to-door” searches would NOT be permitted in his jurisdiction. Drinski took this action after comments attributed to Newton County Sheriff Don Hartman, Sr. suggested that his officers would do so since it was permitted by this ruling.

It’s hard to believe that the court can simply decide that modern conveniences like bail, prompt arraignment and civil recourse actually trump our Constitutional rights.

The Fourth Amendment wasn’t randomly demanded by the states. Rather, it reflected an outgrowth of protection that then-colonies had already recognized in many instances in their own codes of laws. There are several examples of these colonies adopting laws protecting ordinary citizens from similar illegal incursions by government authorities.

Put yourself in the shoes of an American colonist. At the time, the Common Law guarantees enshrined in the Fourth Amendment were not a given in the colonies. British soldiers did not require justification to enter and search your home. It was just one of many examples of how property rights were not recognized by the Crown in the lead up to the American Revolution.

News articles are already circulating about law enforcement supervisors who are more than ready to flex their muscles under the new-found “freedom” granted by this court ruling.

The nature of our part-time legislature in Indiana has left many citizens feeling powerless. I’ve fielded many calls and emails from constituents who are worried that we can’t stop this dangerous ruling from being implemented. Though we don’t return to the Statehouse until next January, I am already working with other senators on drafting an amendment that will ensure our freedoms can’t be encroached by unelected state Supreme Court justices.

Governors get to select a lawyer from a group vetted by a nominating commission. We citizens get to vote to keep them or throw them out by voting to retain them for another term. How many people will have their rights trampled before then?

While in the short term I’m committed to working with my fellow conservative legislators to restore these Constitutional rights, over the long term it is clear that Indiana needs to open a debate about judicial accountability. There are a number of options on the table-perhaps giving the people a voice on these nominations by requiring the Senate to consent to these appointments is appropriate (similar to Federal judges as well as the states of Delaware and New York). Another solution used in many states might be to elect justices to the bench rather than simple appointments.

The bottom line is that Hoosiers demand greater accountability across all levels and branches of government, and this ruling throws that need into stark relief. Join me and conservative Hoosiers across the state to make your voices heard on this issue, so we can fight back and prevent this attack on our liberties from taking hold in Indiana.

To learn more about Senator Banks, you can visit his official website and his campaign website. 

Validating the final totals from election night earlier this Spring, Justice David Prosser has won the recount for the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. The results of the recount are still being formally certified by the state, but the vote totals have been released to the public and they show that Prosser won by approximately 7,006 votes. A narrow but solid margin of victory in a race where nearly 1.5 million votes were cast.

While most of the time a “non-partisan” statewide judicial race would be of interest only to nerdy and wonkish politico types, this race became in some respects more heated than Wisconsin’s gubernatorial campaign last year. The interest level in the race rose when in-state and out-of-state unions began to pour millions of dollars into the campaign warchest of liberal candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg. Prosser, a conservative, faced the grassroots and campaign finance equivalent of a nuclear bomb because the race became viewed as a referendum on the policies of Governor Scott Walker. Walker had been in office less than two months when the Supreme Court race suddenly became – in the eyes of the unions – the ultimate approval rating poll.

With Prosser now headed back to the state’s high court, it is interesting to note the sudden silence of the Wisconsin left as they no longer view the election’s outcome as a barometer of popular opinion. Wisconsin is hardly a red state yet, but with the recount not changing the results of the Supreme Court election, it’s clear that last fall was not just a once-in-a-lifetime electoral hiccup. Change is coming to Wisconsin, and it’s not the kind of change the left has long been advocating.

Addressing what is now a national hot-button topic of funding Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars, HEA 1210 cuts off state funding to Planned Parenthood of Indiana. According to PPIN’s 2010 Annual Report, they received a combined total of over $2 million from government grants and contracts; in some years the amount of revenue from government exceeded the amount of money they raised from the private sector and individuals. Another major step forward is found in the bill’s use of 20 weeks or viability (whichever comes first) as a benchmark for increased regulation on abortions. To substantiate this change the Indiana Code now contains several policy statements arguing for the validity of the proposal.

Because of the unfortunate fact that some abortion providing doctors do not have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals HEA 1210 mandates that all doctors wishing to perform abortions within the state of Indiana obtain hospital admitting privileges. So far, the failure of abortion doctors to obtain admitting privileges has placed the health of the women they operate on in jeopardy. These doctors are now also required to issue written (not just oral) information to women explaining what is involved in an abortion and what a fetus experiences during an abortion. Finally, women seeking an abortion are required to receive an ultrasound unless they sign a waiver saying they do not wish to participate in an ultrasound prior to receiving the abortion. Collectively, these three changes will enhance the survivability of at-risk unborn children throughout the state as loopholes that have long stood open are now closed.

Overwhelming bi-partisan majorities in the House and Senate voted to approve the bill. This reflects a substantial change from the outcomes of previous votes in previous sessions when individual bills and amendments dealing with these issues struggled to even get a final up or down vote. From freshman lawmakers like Sen. Jim Banks (R-Columbia City), Rep. Tim Wesco (R-Mishawaka), and Rep. Mike Speedy (R-Indianapolis) to longer serving members like Sen. Greg Walker (R-Columbus), Sen. Carlin Yoder (R-Middlebury) and Rep. Wes Culver (R-Goshen) as well as a host of other veteran pro-life advocates, the amount of support for this bill was impressive. With its passage, the state of Indiana has once again reaffirmed its commitment to protecting human life as the most basic element of freedom.

For those who may suggest that Governor Daniels decided to sign this bill only because he may have presidential aspirations, the evidence speaks otherwise. While social conservatives have frequently clashed with Gov. Daniels over his lack of leadership on vital issues, and his misguided call for a truce on social matters, there has never been any question about his pro-life beliefs. Regardless of the national political environment and his own role on that stage, Gov. Mitch Daniels would have promised to sign this bill for the simple reason that it resonates with his core beliefs.

The passage of HEA 1210 marks a tremendous step forward for Indiana. While the work must continue to protect Hoosiers who are most vulnerable, it will proceed with the momentum of accumulated achievement represented by this bill and the reforms that it contains.

Courtesy NYMag.com

Perhaps the only point of clarity amidst the massive public protests in Egypt over the past half a week or so is that the administration of President Hosni Mubarak is deeply unpopular with the majority of Egyptians. While all parties seem to agree that Mubarak must go, there is very little indication that these popular protests have as their goal the establishment of a Western-style democratic state. The opposition groups have attempted to use the language of freedom to build international support for their cause, but a recent piece in the Washington Examiner takes a look at some polling done in Egypt on popular views regarding the role of religion in society.

In the Middle-East with its strong Islamic culture, democracy as traditionally understood by the Western mind is frequently tempered by strongly held local beliefs about the importance and centrality of religion and its role in society and government. While the West draws its understanding of freedom from Judeo-Christian values, those religions believe that ultimately every human being is responsible to God for his or her actions and beliefs. Aberrations from this point have produced significant amounts of chaos and tragedy.

To the Islamic mind, religion and the state are one. No transition away from this view has found widespread foothold in Islamic thought and so to this day many Muslims still believe that religion and state are inseparably wedded together. In Egypt, the Middle-East’s most populous nation, this view still holds apparent sway. The Pew Research Center poll written about in the Examiner found numerous paradoxes between the rhetoric embraced by Egyptians and the particular policies they find acceptable.

For example, 84% of Egyptians believe that the death penalty is an acceptable and appropriate punishment for those who convert from the Islamic faith. At the same time, 80% of Egyptians value free speech. Down the list of parallels one might go, finding majority support for values such as democratic government, an independent judiciary, and practical measures such as mandatory workplace gender discrimination and support for the morality of suicide bombings.

Why may such opposing ideas exist simultaneously? The answer may be found in the difference between a statement of values and a statement of policy. We in the West understand the full ramifications of such values as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and independent and impartial judicial systems. We understand that such values carry with them particular policy implications that may or may not agree with our individual preferences. In Egypt, those opposed to the present regime understand that democracy affords them the chance rid themselves of Mubarak and establish a government in accordance with their own wishes and desires. They do not yet understand that democracy, true republican democracy, as a system binds the majority as much as, or more than, any minority.

The moral acceptability of a suicide bomber is a value, but it is also a policy, it is a policy of waging war and expressing ideas in the Middle East. Killing anyone that leaves Islam for another religion is a policy; yes it flows from values, but is a policy. In questioning Egyptians about policies and about values that are Western in nature, there is a sense in which we are comparing apples to oranges. Because the majority of Egyptians do not understand the values behind freedom, they ascribe to such value statements their own interpretation. This creates a synthesis between their understanding of policies they support (such as near unification of church and state) and values they wish to have since they will – in their mind – advance their own interests.

Whether or not democracy may be exported fully to any nation that has a civilizational system of values based on a non-Western moral currency remains to be proven. Iraq has made strides, but it is hardly the example of freedom that Israel is. Why this is so may be found in the Jewish nature of Israel as it is directly tied to the Judeo-Christian values system that forms the bulwark of Western morals. Apart from the definition of acceptable values that we have come to accept as baseline, any other definition will yield only short-term political progress at the expense of a lasting foundation. The trick, of course, is for the nations of the West to understand this and then maneuver to properly direct unrest towards a conclusion that is primarily satisfactory to our own interests and regional stability, and secondarily satisfactory the ones who are presently unhappy with the current regime.

Ms. Kagan

By: Brian Sikma

Ahead of the full Senate’s vote to confirm U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Senate Richard Lugar has declared that he will vote in favor of President’s nominee. Lugar joined South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham in becoming the first two Republican Senators to publicly support Kagan, who has a thin record of judicial experience but a very well-documented record of political maneuvering, and is arguably the most liberal individual to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court.

As disappointing as it is that Lugar would heartily back President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees, it should have come as no surprise. In the early months of his administration, the President nominated federal district judge David F. Hamilton, then serving in Indiana, for an opening on the federal appellate bench. Hamilton made a name for himself several years ago when he ruled that prayers uttered in the name of Jesus Christ in the Indiana General Assembly violated the establishment clause of the 1^st Amendment. Hamilton’s reasoning was obtuse, his use of precedent horrendous, and eventually his ruling was overturned by the very appellate court on which he now sits. Despite that, however, Lugar still praised Hamilton effusively when the President picked him as his first judicial nominee.

Lugar’s stated reasons for backing Kagan are that she is “clearly qualified” and that she has a “distinguished career in both education and public service.” Ms. Kagan is the least experienced judicial nominee in perhaps the history of the court. She has never served on the federal bench and has absolutely no prior experience anywhere as a judge. Her most extensive work experience that could apply to her new job is her recent work as Solicitor General, where she has only argued cases before the Supreme Court.

The “distinguished career” that she has amassed includes vehemently opposing military recruiters on the campus of Harvard Law School, and working in the Clinton White House to carefully review important legal matters through the lens of political calculation. At various points in her past she has expressed acceptance of the idea that U.S. courts should look beyond the Constitution and towards international legal norms (established by the U.N., European Union, and others) for guidance in their decision-making.

The bar for what constitutes “clearly qualified” has been significantly lowered if, in the eyes of Sen. Lugar, Ms. Kagan is just that. Micah Clark, of the American Family Association of Indiana, said, “If this is the new low standard for ‘clearly qualified’ to be one of just nine members of the highest court in the nation with enormous power to control our lives, our system of government and a lifetime appointment to boot, then we are really in trouble.” Clark is right. Unfortunately, Lugar refuses to set aside his thinking that Congress somehow owes it to the President to confirm his judicial nominees.

Those like Lugar and Lindsey Graham, who argue that they must vote for any and all judicial nominations out of respect for the President, or just because they personally deem them to be “clearly qualified,” are disengaging from their job. Just as Presidents win elections and thus the prerogative to appoint whomever they wish, Senators are sent to Washington to be a check, not a rubberstamp, on executive power. In easily passing favorable judgment about Ms. Kagan’s nomination, Sen. Lugar failed to do what the people of Indiana sent him to Washington to do. Further, by so quickly and uncritically embracing a judicial nominee who is nothing more than a left-wing lawyer-activist, Lugar failed his own Republican Party.

In 2012, Senator Lugar should pass up the chance to run again; he should retire and leave the field open for a stronger, more vigorous, more conservative candidate who will not uncritically accept the dictates of Washington as direction for how he should fulfill is personal responsibility. Indiana, and Indiana Republicans, deserve better than Richard Lugar.