Len Munsil » Other

WHY ALL CONSERVATIVES SHOULD SUPPORT SEN. MCCAIN

Len Munsil — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:07:54 +0000

Although Sen. John McCain has locked up the Republican nomination for President, some conservative leaders continue to snipe at him. While I agree with elements of most conservative critiques of Sen. McCain, I could not possibly disagree more with their conclusions – especially if those conclusions cause conservatives to sit this election out.
Sen. McCain is not the lesser of two evils. In fact, he is worthy of the enthusiastic support of every thinking conservative.
I join many citizens in gratitude that a genuine American hero with core conservative beliefs – who has already given so much for our nation — is willing to spend his eighth decade on earth serving a cause greater than himself.
If you are an across-the-board conservative like I am – a fiscal, social and foreign policy conservative – it is in your interest and the national interest to elect Sen. McCain.
It’s not just because either of the Democratic alternatives would jeopardize our security, our economy and our values – though they would. It is because the election of John McCain will substantially advance the conservative principles and values we’ve been fighting for.
In the interest of full disclosure, Sen. McCain endorsed me in the Republican primary for Governor in 2006, even making strong television ads on my behalf. I was honored to have his support in a contested primary that I eventually won. But he never asked me for anything in return, then or now.
I write today on my own, without the knowledge or approval of the McCain campaign. And I do so because I am concerned that some conservatives are heading down a path that will result in the destruction of every principle they claim to promote.
Foreign policy conservatives should have the least concern about McCain. He has the experience and determination to carry the battle to the enemy in what he describes as the “transcendent issue” of our time – the fight against radical Islamic extremists. He is committed to victory in Iraq, and was an early proponent of the surge that has turned the tide.
Both Democratic candidates have made promises of withdrawal that will embolden our enemies and put at risk not only our troops but also the free citizens of Iraq who have trusted us with their lives.
Social conservatives have worked for a generation to promote the unique humanity and value of every human life, and are finally winning the battle of public opinion. Sen. McCain not only has voted pro-life for more than two decades – receiving the endorsement of Arizona Right to Life in every election since 1982 – but has pledged to appoint judges who are committed to constitutional fidelity. He has fought for every conservative appointment to the high court, including Robert Bork.
When we are so close to restoring the promise of the Declaration of Independence – the “unalienable” right to life of every human child – why would any sincere pro-lifer sit this election out? Unfortunately, we know what either Democrat would do – the “litmus test” of commitment to the flawed Roe v. Wade decision is alive and well. Aging liberals on the Court will line up to let Clinton or Obama replace them with liberal justices 30 years younger – preserving Roe and other activist decisions for at least another generation.
Sen. McCain supports marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Like Fred Thompson, he opposes amending the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage unless it is absolutely necessary — which it would be if federal courts overturn state definitions of marriage. For now, he supports state efforts to confirm marriage as the unique bond of male and female.
Economic conservatives should appreciate Sen. McCain’s lifelong quest to reduce the size and scope of government and to end pork barrel spending. He has never voted for a tax increase and is committed to making the Bush tax cuts permanent. He believes in free market solutions to health care, not the government take-over promoted by Democrats.
With a lifetime conservative voting record of 82.3 percent, Sen. McCain’s commitment to our principles stands in stark contrast to his Democratic opponents, both of whom vote conservative less than 10 percent of the time.
The suggestion by one pundit that Hillary Clinton is “more conservative” than McCain is hyperbole on steroids — so factually wrong that it’s just plain silly.
Talk show pundits have bludgeoned us with the list of McCain’s sins against conservative orthodoxy, beginning with his immigration bill.
But consider this – even in dealing with illegal immigration, Sen. McCain’s concern for national security and his recognition of political reality will cause him to do much more to secure the borders than any Democrat. If that’s the only issue you care about, Sen. McCain is still your best hope for progress – the Democrats can’t even given a straight answer about whether they would give drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens.
I first met McCain in 1984, when he came to my office for an interview while I was the editor of ASU’s daily student newspaper. Later, in a debate at ASU, he criticized federal efforts to stop illegal immigration. Consistent with his position today, he expressed concern about rounding up and deporting people who have been here for years. But then he said, “We need to tighten up our border control.”
That’s right – all the way back in 1984, when many of us who are concerned now about illegal immigration were not even aware of the issue – John McCain was on record calling for more border security.
For conservatives, supporting John McCain is not a compromise or a sell-out of our principles. He is a presidential candidate who will strengthen national security, appoint conservative judges, support the sanctity of life, keep taxes low and veto pork barrel spending. He will advance the conservative cause in significant ways.
Every day that conservative leaders grumble and express reservations about McCain increases the likelihood that a liberal Democrat will take office next January.
Then there will be no checks on the liberal tendencies of Nancy Pelosi and a Democratic Congress. The Supreme Court will be gone for a generation. Our right to make medical decisions will be lost. Our economy will be stifled by taxes and regulation. Our border will remain wide open. And we can only pray that our pullback from the war effort does not lead to more attacks in the United States.
For conservatives, that’s an awfully high price to pay because you’re mad about campaign finance reform or a dead and buried immigration bill.

THE FIRST PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT

Len Munsil — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:14:31 +0000

As we listen each day to promises of new domestic giveaways by the Democrats — universal health care, mortgage bailouts — we would do well to remember that our Founding Fathers declared that the primary role of government is to protect its citizens. In Federalist Paper No. 23, Alexander Hamilton argued that one of the chief reasons for the unification of the colonies into a federal system of government was to “…[provide for] the common defense of the members; [and] the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks…”.
When the government provides peace and security for the people, a framework of freedom is created enabling citizens to provide for their own needs without governmental interference.
Check the headlines this month – we still live in a dangerous world.
Now more than ever America needs a commander in-chief who is prepared to defend America from her enemies. While we have successfully liberated the Iraqi people from a cruel tyrant who threatened the United States and other nations, we are still at risk from radical Islam. Iran’s nutty Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens to destroy Israel and continues to pursue nuclear weapons.
Vladimir Putin of Russia – still in charge after the election of his hand-chosen puppet – has warned that he would target a U.S. missile-defense base in Poland, even while he continues to meddle in the affairs of former Soviet satellite states. The Balkans are again rife with conflict as Serbian protestors stormed and set fire to the American Embassy in Belgrade. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions threaten to destabilize the Korean Peninsula and the rest of East Asia. And now Hugo Chavez is threatening to invade Columbia, raising the potential for war on the American continent.
Just as Hamilton and our Founders understood the fundamental role of government in protecting its citizens, so too did President Ronald Reagan. He maintained that while America doesn’t go looking for conflict, “when action is required to preserve our national security — we will act.”
Twenty-five years ago this month President Reagan delivered one of his most famous speeches, when he declared the nation’s only other superpower, the Soviet Union, to be an “evil empire.” In proclaiming the superiority of human freedom to the totalitarian collectivism practiced by the Soviets, Reagan in that speech laid the foundation for victory in the Cold War and peace for a generation.
Reagan’s deeds matched his words. In 1983, he ordered a military invasion of Grenada – an island in conflict as Marxist radicals assassinated their Prime Minister – to ensure the safety of more than 400 American medical students on the island. To this day, America and Reagan are celebrated in a free Grenada. In 1986 following disputes over access to the Gulf of Sidra and evidence linking Libya’s terrorist leader Muammar al-Gaddafi to a discotheque bombing in Berlin, Ronald Reagan ordered bombing raids on Tripoli and Benghazi. Gaddafi has been a compliant paper tiger ever since.
While national security was once a bipartisan concern — remember the resolve of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman? – today’s Democratic leaders seem to believe they can talk their way out of trouble from bellicose nations and terrorist ideologues who want to destroy America and kill Americans.
In a recent debate Sen. Barack Obama said he would meet with leaders of nations who wish America harm, including Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Even Sen. Hillary Clinton wouldn’t go that far.
Obama is equally naïve about Iraq — just last year he introduced legislation to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March of 2008 – that’s right now! If American troops leave Iraq precipitously, the country will deteriorate into a terrorist stronghold, much worse than what we found in Afghanistan.
While Hillary may be more seasoned, her policy positions are not much better. A main tenet of Hillary’s Iraq policy involves working with the United Nations to achieve regional stability. But the U.N. is the very body that could not enforce its countless resolutions pertaining to Iraq’s non-compliance with weapons inspectors for a decade prior to 2004 – that’s a key reason America went into Iraq in the first place.
In 2008 we must throw our support behind a candidate who understands the complexities of foreign policy and is willing to do what it takes to ensure that America and its citizens are secure. Sen. John McCain’s experience and commitment to our national defense stand in stark contrast to the weakness and appeasement favored by the Democrats. Sen. McCain and the Republican Party continue to stand – alongside our Founding Fathers and presidents like Ronald Reagan – in full support of the principle that the first priority of government is the security and safety of our people.

NATIONAL SECURITY: THE FIRST OBLIGATION OF GOVERNMENT

Len Munsil — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:41:21 +0000

As we listen each day to promises of new domestic giveaways by the Democrats — universal health care, mortgage bailouts — we would do well to remember that our Founding Fathers declared that the primary role of government is to protect its citizens. In Federalist Paper No. 23, Alexander Hamilton argued that one of the chief reasons for the unification of the colonies into a federal system of government was to “…[provide for] the common defense of the members; [and] the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks…”.
When the government provides peace and security for the people, a framework of freedom is created enabling citizens to provide for their own needs without governmental interference.
Check the headlines this week – we still live in a dangerous world.
Now more than ever America needs a commander in-chief who is prepared to defend America from her enemies. While we have successfully liberated the Iraqi people from a cruel tyrant who threatened the United States and other nations, we are still at risk from radical Islam. Iran’s nutty Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens to destroy Israel and continues to pursue nuclear weapons.
Vladimir Putin of Russia – still in charge after the election of his hand-chosen puppet – has warned that he would target a U.S. missile-defense base in Poland, even while he continues to meddle in the affairs of former Soviet satellite states. The Balkans are again rife with conflict as Serbian protestors stormed and set fire to the American Embassy in Belgrade. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions threaten to destabilize the Korean Peninsula and the rest of East Asia. And now Hugo Chavez is threatening to invade Columbia, raising the potential for war on the American continent.
Just as Hamilton and our Founders understood the fundamental role of government in protecting its citizens, so too did President Ronald Reagan. He maintained that while America doesn’t go looking for conflict, “when action is required to preserve our national security — we will act.”
Twenty-five years ago this month President Reagan delivered one of his most famous speeches, when he declared the nation’s only other superpower, the Soviet Union, to be an “evil empire.” In proclaiming the superiority of human freedom to the totalitarian collectivism practiced by the Soviets, Reagan in that speech laid the foundation for victory in the Cold War and peace for a generation.
Reagan’s deeds matched his words. In 1983, he ordered a military invasion of Grenada – an island in conflict as Marxist radicals assassinated their Prime Minister – to ensure the safety of more than 400 American medical students on the island. To this day, America and Reagan are celebrated in a free Grenada. In 1986 following disputes over access to the Gulf of Sidra and evidence linking Libya’s terrorist leader Muammar al-Gaddafi to a discotheque bombing in Berlin, Ronald Reagan ordered bombing raids on Tripoli and Benghazi. Gaddafi has been a compliant paper tiger ever since.
While national security was once a bipartisan concern — remember the resolve of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman? – today’s Democratic leaders seem to believe they can talk their way out of trouble from bellicose nations and terrorist ideologues who want to destroy America and kill Americans.
In a recent debate Sen. Barack Obama said he would meet with leaders of nations who wish America harm, including Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Even Sen. Hillary Clinton wouldn’t go that far.
Obama is equally naïve about Iraq — just last year he introduced legislation to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March of 2008 – that’s right now! If American troops leave Iraq precipitously, the country will deteriorate into a terrorist stronghold, much worse than what we found in Afghanistan.
While Hillary may be more seasoned, her policy positions are not much better. A main tenet of Hillary’s Iraq policy involves working with the United Nations to achieve regional stability. But the U.N. is the very body that could not enforce its countless resolutions pertaining to Iraq’s non-compliance with weapons inspectors for a decade prior to 2004 – that’s a key reason America went into Iraq in the first place.
In 2008 we must throw our support behind a candidate who understands the complexities of foreign policy and is willing to do what it takes to ensure that America and its citizens are secure. Sen. John McCain’s experience and commitment to our national defense stand in stark contrast to the weakness and appeasement favored by the Democrats. Sen. McCain and the Republican Party continue to stand – alongside our Founding Fathers and presidents like Ronald Reagan – in full support of the principle that the first priority of government is the security and safety of our people.
Len Munsil is the Chairman of PRO-PAC (www.pro-pac.org) and was the 2006 Republican nominee for Governor of Arizona. He blogs at www.lenmunsil.com.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST

Len Munsil — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:45:29 +0000

Elections are about whose ideas are better for governing. The easiest way to compare is to watch debates between candidates. I want to encourage you to do so, and to email everyone you know with this link so that they can make up their own minds based on something other than media spin or campaign ads.
Here are several opportunities to compare my ideas with Janet Napolitano’s. First, the newly released video clips from our editorial board meeting with The Arizona Republic.
Also, our Tucson debate on Oct. 10 and our Phoenix debate on Oct. 5.
I have invited Janet Napolitano to debate multiple times all over Arizona. I have asked for a no-holds barred discussion of issues, with each of us having the opportunity to question and challenge each other. I have offered to have a blog-off, and am willing to put her responses unedited on my website.
But so far we have only a commitment to one more debate, the details of which are still being worked out.
In the meantime, please let people know about the links above and encourage them to cast an informed vote in November.

24 DAYS TO GO!

Len Munsil — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:15:11 +0000

With less than 48 hours notice, about 300 people packed out Republican Party headquarters today for a massive “Munsil for Governor” rally!
With just 24 days to go until the election, I challenged our supporters to pack as much effort into these next 24 days as Jack Bauer packs into one 24-hour day!
I’m grateful for the incredible outpouring of enthusiastic volunteers! We continue to run a grassroots campaign that is dependent on volunteers to get our message into the community.
Our hundreds of supporters this morning understand that connecting with voters is the key to this election. That’s why they took call sheets for tens of thousands of voters and pledged to make those calls this week. They also took yard signs and bumper stickers for their neighborhoods and family and friends.
If you were not able to make the rally but are ready to help, we need to hear from you today! Please email us or call us at 480-308-9940! We need your help to reach undecided voters beginning today!

JANET’S ANTI-AMERICAN MEMORIAL ON FOX NEWS

Len Munsil — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:44:29 +0000

Janet Napolitano’s embrace of an anti-American “memorial” to 9/11 continues to draw national attention.
Despite the ongoing harm and the emotional devastation this is causing to family members of 9/11 victims, Janet Napolitano refuses to budge. Family members have formed a nonprofit to build a new memorial — you can read about it and support their efforts here. These family members have asked the Governor to call a special session to address the issue. She has refused.
Just last week, she reiterated in our live debate that she “embraced” the memorial. This occurred well after the controversy over anti-American and anti-military themes and inscriptions became public, and after a number of family members of 9/11 victims and heroes of the war on terror expressed their outrage.
Now Fox News has taken the story national, and the blogosphere is swarming again. You can see the Fox News report, for which I was interviewed, at this blog.

ONE WORD

Len Munsil — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:27:56 +0000

With a few seconds left in last night’s debate, the moderator asked each us for the “one word” that was the key to this election. All of us stayed in character:
Barry Hess went for the laugh and said “Votes.”
Janet Napolitano ignored the rules, using six words to say “More votes than Barry or Len.”
I followed the rules and stayed focused on the question and said: “Border!”
Our supporters erupted in applause, and that was how we went off the air.

YOU CAN “MISUNDERESTIMATE” ME TOO!

Len Munsil — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:42:10 +0000

I was honored to meet the President last night as he exited Air Force One and again this morning. He said some nice things about me publicly – that I’m an honest, attractive candidate and a family man.
When he introduced me as “Lee Munsil” I was honored to join a long list of gaffes and verbal miscues from a great president who doesn’t always say things perfectly but always means what he says. And I had no idea he knew my middle name!

I WELCOME THE PRESIDENT TO ARIZONA

Len Munsil — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:21:11 +0000

I’m just returning from the airport where I had the honor of being among a few official greeters for the President of the United States.
President Bush arrived tonight after a long day of campaigning for Republican candidates in California. Despite the long day, he was very gracious as we had a chance to talk briefly about my race at the base of the steps when he exited Air Force One.
Tomorrow morning I will introduce my wife Tracy to the President as we attend a breakfast in support of Congressman Rick Renzi.
Hey, this running for Governor thing can be kind of fun! I told my kids about meeting the President, and they were excited for me, but they were more excited about getting dressed up for Spirit Day during Homecoming week. And really, who can blame them? One of the great things about this President … I think he would understand.

ANCIENT HISTORY

Len Munsil — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:43:09 +0000

The Arizona Republic’s front-page profile on me today spent a lot of time reviewing and recording what I wrote and thought more than 20 years ago, when I was in college.
It is interesting how often Janet Napolitano’s campaign talking points — as reflected in the statements of her surrogates or Democratic Party-funded attacks — wind up in supposedly objective features on me.
Unwilling to defend Janet Napolitano’s failure to secure the border, failure to lessen crime, and failure to improve education, transportation or CPS, they would much rather take a few sentences I wrote in college out of context and run against that.
In that task they have a lot of help in the mainstream media. In a low-budget election, it’s nice when you have a 300-thousand-plus circulation newspaper to drive your campaign themes.
Here are the takeaways. I have been an award-winning, successful leader in all that I have done beginning in college. As such, I was out front speaking and writing about difficult policy issues when most college students and law students were bar-hopping. (And after viewing some of the distortions of my writings, I’m thinking bar-hopping might have been a better choice.)
My take on issues was so controversial that a liberal faculty voted me the Outstanding Graduate of the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at ASU.
Do we really want “stealth” candidates for office who have never accomplished or taken a stand on anything?
And just to be fair, are these same objective journalists going back to determine exactly what Janet Napolitano did, said and believed when she was a radical feminist activist and one of the first two students in the women’s studies program at Santa Clara College?
Are they talking to college classmates who she hasn’t talked to in 20 years, like they did for my article? Will they give prominent space and credibility to her harshest critics and political opponents, as they did for my article?
Will they go back and determine her reputation when she first ran for Attorney General, as one liberal newspaper put it in 1998: “The feminist: Janet Napolitano…. She’d make a great candidate in, say, Massachusetts. But she’s got the wrong profile to run in stodgy Arizona.”
Will they review the cynical creation of her “made for politics” image as a tough prosecutor, as she acknowledged 8 years ago in a New Times feature:

Days after Bill Clinton’s election, then-senator Dennis DeConcini called and asked Napolitano if she’d like to be U.S. attorney for the District of Arizona.
“I really didn’t know what a U.S. attorney did,” she admits. She took a few former U.S. attorneys to lunch, and decided she’d like the job.

I guess we’ll have to wait until next week to find out.