ConservativeHome's The Republican

GOP Senators say it's time to balance the checkbook

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

In a bold effort to rein in federal spending, GOP Senators banded together today to push for a Balanced Budget Amendement to the US Constitution.

In a series of speeches, press statements and a morning new conference, all 47 Senate Republicans demanded today that the BBA be incorporated into ongoing debt-ceiling talks, insisting that this is the only way Washington can overcome the country's enormous debt burden.

A popular idea among voters, here's a look at what a number of the Senate's newest Republicans had to say about the nation's need for a BBA:

Senator Dan Coats:

In 1995 and 1997, I voted for a balanced budget amendment to set limits on spending and require the federal government to balance its checkbook. Each time the Senate came one vote short of the 2/3 required to pass. If this amendment had passed and been ratified by three-fourths of our states, we would not be faced with the dire financial situation that exists today...Passing a balanced budget amendment is a good first step to get our country’s fiscal house in order.

Senator Marco Rubio:

Our unsustainable debt and ever-rising deficits are not victimless practices—they cause uncertainty that is actively killing jobs and threatening to leave future generations stuck with the bill....A balanced budget amendment would end this harmful practice and finally bring accountability to the budget-making process...We do not need tax hikes to pay for Washington’s spending addiction. We need a President and Democrat Senate who will join Senate Republicans in supporting a strong balanced budget amendment that will handcuff out-of-control politicians.

Senator Kelly Ayotte:

Despite the obvious fiscal crisis we face, it has now been 791 days since the Democrat-controlled Senate last passed a budget. That's unacceptable...A Balanced Budget Amendment will require Washington to tighten its belt like families do. This is the single most important budget reform we can pass to reduce federal spending and put our nation on a path to fiscal sustainability.

Senator Rand Paul:

Politicians of all stripes...have spent this country to the point of insolvency...the only way we will every get our fiscal house in order is to amend the constitution to balance the budget, and it is the only way that I will vote to raise the debt limit.

Senator Mike Lee:

To truly fix the spending problem in Washington, we have to fundamentally change the rules that govern Congress...If we want to eliminate deficits, reduce the national debt, get control of spending, preserve our constitutional priorities, and save our economy, it starts with the balanced budget amendment.  It is the only solution that guarantees future reforms will be enforced.

What they're saying: Conservatives weigh in on Chris Christie's courageous compromise

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

This week Governor Chris Christie scored a major victory in the battle against unsustainable spending, taking on both the New Jersey legislature and the state's influential unions.

Saving $130 billion over the next 30 years, Christie secured a remarkable compromise with state Democrats, sparing New Jersey residents from an excruciating tax burden largely caused by unfunded pension/benefit liabilities previously promised to state workers.

A lesson in leadership that many in Washington could learn from, here's a look at what pundits, politicians and publications have had to say about Christie's taxpayer triumph:

In his op-ed in the WSJ this weekend, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell said of Christie's achievement:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's monumental achievement this week in passing a bill to reform his state's public-employee benefits is a prime example. As Gov. Christie said Friday, underfunded pension and health-care obligations are "the core problems of government spending in the country."

This is the kind of leadership Americans want right now: straight talk about the fiscal mess we're in and a plan to solve it. 

In a Editorial in this morning's paper, New York Post Editors applauded Christie's leadership:

Christie's reform won't fill that entire hole, but will help avert disasters down the road. And he got help from top Democrats in the Legislature, including Senate Majority Leader Steve Sweeney, who's a union boss in his day job.

The result is a compromise, to become law next week, that spares taxpayers from shouldering an unbearable burden.

This is what happens when you govern with your eyes open. Kudos to Christie, once again.

Weighing in on the impact of the compromise, Jonathan S. Tobin blogged:

The ability of the blunt-speaking and controversial governor to build a bipartisan coalition for fiscal sanity is just as amazing as the victory itself. While building a national reputation as a man who is not shy about telling opponents what he thinks of them, Christie was still able to find common ground with Democratic mayors and county officials (some of whom have seats in the legislature) to work out a deal that would help the taxpayers....Christie’s rout of the unions provides a model for leaders of both parties to follow as they attempt to save their states and the federal government from the fallout of generations of treating entitlements and state worker benefits as the third rail of politics.

In her recent interview with the New Jersey Governor, the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin commented:

Far from being a rock-and-sock-’em partisan he’s figured out how to pass bipartisan, sweeping reform with no tax hikes and in the face of hostile unions and media. That’s an impressive item on the resume, whether for vice president or for president, if not for 2012, then perhaps for 2016.

What they're saying: House freshmen slam President Obama's 'politically convenient' decision to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

In a coordinated effort with by the International Energy Agency, 60 million barrels of oil will be released from global reserves over the next month, half of which is to come from the US stockpile.

The Obama Administration insists this is necessary to counter supply disruption in Libya, despite the fact that Libyan production accounts for barely 2% of the world's oil, with most of it's output going to Europe.

Unsurprisingly, Republicans are more than a little irritated with the announcement, particularly as US production remains at a standstill thanks to the White House's politically charged "fly-by-the-seat-of-its-pants energy policy" that has done little to promote long-term solutions or domestic development.

Having already passed four bills intended to maximize America’s energy capability (unfortunately, none of which have cleared the Senate), here's a look at what House freshmen have had to say about the administration's 'politically convenient' decision to tap the country's SPR:

Congresswoman Kristi Noem:

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve should be reserved for truly national emergencies, not simply simply a failure in leadership.

Congressman Ben Quayle:

Rather than considering Republican efforts to take advantage of our abundant sources of American oil and natural gas, the Administration has chosen the politically convenient route of opening reserves, a move that should only be taken during national emergencies. Allowing energy exploration to continue in Alaska, the Gulf Coast region and elsewhere will not only move America closer to energy independence, but it will also create thousands of fulltime American jobs. We deserve an energy policy focused on results, not politics.

Congressman Tim Griffin

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is intended to be used for emergencies.  The President's policies have contributed to higher energy prices and the SPR is not the answer.  If the President truly wants to address the high price of gas by increasing the supply of oil, he should join with the House in supporting measures that will maximize U.S. energy production and create jobs for American workers.

Congressman Robert Dold:

Today’s announcement that the Administration is releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is troubling due to the lack of long-term solutions offered by the Administration. Rather than utilizing the resources we have at home...the Administration has decided to use our emergency energy reserve….[We] must make production tax credits for clean, renewable fuel permanent.  We also must utilize the energy resources we have in Illinois, as well as eliminate the boutique fuel policy that raises fuel costs.  And finally, we need to continue to open up domestic exploration while we simultaneously increase our use of clean, alternative energy resources.

Congressman Mike Pompeo:

House Republicans...continue to promote commonsense energy policies aimed at decreasing onerous EPA regulation and increasing our own domestic energy production.  For example, just yesterday we passed Rep. Gardner’s bill, The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 (H.R. 2021).  That bill would yield a million barrels per day of American oil and create 54,000 jobs in the process by ending Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) permitting delays...Snatching oil from our domestic reserves to provide self-preserving political cover is unacceptable. 

Congressman Alan Nunnelee:

Poll numbers are causing President Obama to pull one political stunt after another. High gas prices are a serious problem facing all Americans. Instead of a real energy plan, the Administration will execute a short-sighted solution to the challenges facing our country. Drawing down reserves intended for national emergencies is far from the energy plan we need to address rising gas prices and achieve energy independence...If we are going to truly relieve pain at the pump, the Obama Administration must quit opposing and blocking American energy production.

Congressman Jeff Landry:

The President continues to be a day late and a dollar short. Since House Republicans have aggressively fought back against rising gas prices by passing multiple energy bills in May, oil prices have fallen to under $100 per barrel and the average gas prices have dropped 30 cents. Once again, the President is leading from behind. Unfortunately, the American taxpayers will be forced to pay the price...Americans are tired of irresponsible, political stunts by the President like today’s announcement; we want continued lower energy prices and we want jobs.

Congressman Jeff Duncan:

There are no short cuts on the path to American energy independence...The 30 million barrels of oil released through the reserve are nothing compared to what America could produce on a monthly basis if the President stopped blocking deep sea and arctic energy exploration. Americans need long-term stability and relief in the cost of fuel, not more government manipulation.

Congressman Tom Marino:

Tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not the answer to our energy probelems. The purpose of this reserve is to keep America running in case of a major supply disruption. What we need is a long-term energy policy that weans the U.S. off foreign oil.

'Enough is enough': GOP freshmen respond to the CBO's latest economic outlook

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

With the CBO predicting total US debt to overtake the size of the country's entire economy within a year, GOP lawmakers had a lot to say this morning.

Frustrated with Democrats' obstinate disregard for much needed spending reforms, here's a quick look at what a number of Republican freshmen had to say about today's CBO projections:

Senator Pat Toomey:

This CBO budget outlook further shows that out country is on an unsustainable fiscal course, with massive deficits and unrestrained federal spending. This dismal long-term outlook underscores my concerns that the president hasn't put forth a responsible plan to address our nation's fiscal future, and my colleagues across the aisle haven't even proposed a budget for the coming year. Our country has been operating without a budget for 784 days now, and it's clear that neither the president nor my colleagues across the aisle have a plan to tackle Washington's spending problem.

Congressman Joe Heck:

One week after the anniversary of President Obama’s recovery summer, Nevada’s unemployment rate is at 12.1%.  Despite numerous recent reports that our debt and deficit are severely burdening our economy, some in Washington want to spend even more. Washington needs to learn what Nevada families already know –we must stop spending money we don’t have

Congressman Robert Dold:

If small businesses were held to the same standard as the United States’ government, they would be out of business in less than a month.  Today’s report is troubling and should send yet another wake-up call to Washington- enough is enough, now is the time to rein in spending, cut red tape, and start putting America back to work.  Taxpayers have no more money to give and those who are out of work have no more time to wait. 

Congressman James Lankford:

If we continue with the status quo, our national debt will devour our entire economy. We must slow down the growth of government.

Congressman Tim Scott:

Three years ago, our nation’s debt was basically equal with the 40 year average in terms of GDP; by the end of this year it will be at the highest rate since shortly after World War II. The CBO projects by 2035, if our spending habits go unchanged, the interest payments on our debt alone will be almost nine percent of our GDP, an increase of 536 percent. For comparison, that is roughly twice what we spend today on Social Security. 

How much more time does the President need to acknowledge his policies are not working? 

What they're saying: Conservatives weigh in on Huntsman's 2012 bid

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Jon Huntsman officially entered the 2012 presidential race on Tuesday, and while he has attempted to define himself as a Reaganesque, reform-minded Republican, the former governor still has a lot to prove to GOP and conservative voters.

Despite Huntsman's noteworthy array of experience, as expected yesterday's launch unleashed a flood of critique from all sides of the political spectrum as many remain skeptical of his ideology and electability (although Harry Reid appears to be a fan).

The most moderate GOP candidate currently in the race, here's a look at what a number of conservatives have had to say about Huntsman's bid for the White House:

John Guardino, FrumForum:

Somehow, someway, Huntsman needs to depict himself not as the “liberal” or “moderate” Republican, but as the “reform-minded Republican” like Congressman Jack Kemp. Unfortunately for Huntsman, that’s easier said than done...The bottom line: Huntsman in 2012? No way, no how. But Huntsman in 2016? Maybe, but politically speaking, that’s light years away. We’ll have to wait and see.

David Frum, FrumForum:

The entry of Jon Huntsman into the GOP races inspires great hope for governance-minded Republicanism. Here is a candidate who is intelligent and responsible, who rejects the “all-out war” model of politics, who shows that a father of seven can also be culturally modern and who has integrated the environment into his priorities. All excellent!

But Huntsman has from the outset imposed a dangerous and unnecessary disability on himself. It’s the same one that felled the Rudy Giuliani campaign in 2008, so I speak from painful experience here.

Mark McKinnon, The Daily Beast:

Huntsman is laid-back and civil, even in his criticism of Obama: “[He] is trying to pick up the pieces of our economy and make sense of a world grown more complex and confusing.” But don’t let the calm exterior fool you. A tax-cutting, jobs-growing Mormon with seven kids, who rides motocross and who dropped out of high school to play in a band, he is a man of roiling contrasts and strong principles.

It’s an unconventional time. Voters are looking for someone different—maybe someone like Jon Hunstman.

Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary:

Republicans want their potential candidates to offer a genuine alternative to Obama rather than a civil opponent with a different party label. Huntsman’s campaign guru John Weaver has consciously sought to position Huntsman as a moderate in much the same way John McCain did when he ran for president in 2000. But just as Huntsman is nothing like Reagan, he has just as little in common with a genuine hero like McCain. The former Utah governor seems like a nice guy, but he’s an empty suit when compared with either former Republican leader.

AllahPundit, HotAir:

Isn’t this basically just a smarter, more polished version of a Charlie Crist 2012 campaign? Slick, mavericky governor, a “different kind of Republican,” willing to break prior commitments to chase his national ambitions, reviled by the base for his centrism and his chumminess with Obama...Huntsman is a longshot, swimming upstream against both the tea party and Romney’s better-funded, higher profile campaign, and destined to take a beating from the grassroots while he’s running.

Michelle Malkin, Washington Examiner:

[Un]nderneath the Steve McQueen costumery, this made-for-cable-TV Moderate Speed Racer is a creaky old John McCain on Wheels...Huntsman is the latest no-labels flavor of the month, a straw man of the same people who have spent the past year smearing entitlement reformers as senior citizen-killers, budget hawks as Hitler's spawn, border-security activists as racists, and leading GOP women as sluts, nuts and bimbos.

"Newtiny!" Conservatives weigh in on Gingrich's latest campaign calamity

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Despite yesterday's departure of more than a dozen campaign staffers, Newt Gingrich is vowing to charge ahead with his 2012 crusade.

And while some point to John McCain's 2008 campaign as an example of how it's possible to rebound from mass resignations, many conservatives have remained skeptical of the former Speaker's seriousness and self discipline as a candidate, a concern which appears to be the crux of his current campaign troubles.

As recently resigned campaign manager Tyler Schoenfeld commented:

There needs to be an investment of candidate time, to not only actually do the retail politics but to the fund-raising and everything else. . . . It was not evident that what I thought needed to be done meshed with what he thought could be done

Not to mention that less than a month since confirming his candidacy Gingrich has already suffered a number of self inflicted blunders, and his favorability ratings have fallen considerably among GOP voters in recent weeks.

As his competitors quickly capitalize on his current challenges, here's a look at what a number of political pundits have had to say about yesterday's staff exodus and the future of the former Speaker's presidential campaign:

Richard Galen:

Gingrich and his wife wanted to campaign where, when, and how they wanted; a different kind of campaign. But, they ran afoul of the rule that campaigns look like campaigns look, because there's a design solution that works. The Gingrich campaign was like an airliner with no wings, no engines, and no landing gear. It was a different kind of airliner. But, it couldn't get off the ground.

Kevin D. Williamson:

It is not news that Newt Gingrich is disorganized and undisciplined  – his 1,000-ideas-a-minute pace all but ensures it...Staffers have been highly critical of his management style, to say the least, and Newt has been all over the map, from veering toward the fringe with that “Kenyan anti-colonialist” business to veering into RINO territory denouncing “right-wing social engineering.”  I’d endorse Newt Gingrich for president . . . of a very good college. It is impossible to imagine him president of the United States. I don’t know why Perry isn’t in, and I don’t know why Gingrich is.

Michael Barone:

This is dreadful news for Gingrich’s candidacy, of a sort that may have been foreseen when Pete Wehner of Commentary and the Ethics and Public Policy Center predicted that Gingrich would get out of the race before the end of the summer and David Shribman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette asked why so few of Gingrich’s associates from the 1990s were supporting him this time. One justification for the long hard slog of the presidential nominating campaign is that it tests a candidate’s ability to manage. In this case there seems to have been some major problem. It’s hard to see how Gingrich’s campaign survives this mass defection.

 Pete Wehner:

The implosion of the Gingrich campaign is a reminder that a myriad of factors go into making a strong candidate and a strong president. There is a tendency sometimes to reduce it simply to where a person stands on the issues. (Do they score eight out of 10 on a checklist or 10 out of 10? Have they cast “heretical” votes?) But Gingrich reminds us that one’s temperament, character, and self-discipline matter too, and those qualities are often harder to discern. 

David Frum:

The Gingrich campaign has collapsed so rapidly, so abruptly, and so seemingly hopelessly that it seems incredible that anybody could ever have thought of Newt Gingrich as a serious candidate for president.

Yet only a few months ago, Gingrich ranked as one of the four top-tier candidates for president, along with Huckabee, Palin, and Romney.

Charles Krauthammer:

You know [his staff] spoke about a difference of views about the direction of the campaign….I think direction is the wrong word…it’s about the seriousness of the campaign…He thinks he can do it Newt Lite and I think he’s got to a staff who think’s that’s utterly impossible in this day and age.

Fred Barnes:

The problem was the wife...The euphemism offered by departing staffers was they disagreed with Gingrich’s “strategy” for the campaign. Indeed, they did disagree. But it was a strategy – a part-time campaign, in effect – that Gingrich’s wife favored.

Erick Erickson:

For what it’s worth, I do not believe Gingrich is dropping out and there are no indications that Gingrich is dropping out. This just seems to be additional evidence that Gingrich’s management chaos has changed little since he was Speaker of the House. I think he thinks this thing was supposed to be handed to him…And I’m not sure if he is back from the Mediterranean yet.

Juan Williams:

Look this campaign is over…it’s just a matter of it being announced.

GOP freshmen say Geithner just doesn't get it

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Timothy Geithner went to Capitol Hill yesterday to speak with nearly 100 House freshmen in an attempt to secure a debt ceiling increase before the August 2 deadline. And while the Treasury Secretary emerged from the meeting confident that a fiscal agreement was within reach, GOP lawmakers remained less than impressed.

Despite Republicans' repeated calls for lowering spending and the fact that more than 150 economists say expenditure cuts should exceed any debt limit hike, the Treasury Secretary reiterated in the meeting the administration's view that income should be generated by tax increases on the wealthy, even though he also admitted that the country borrows too much.

Here's a look at what some of Washington's frustrated new Republicans had to say about Thursday's discussion with Geithner:

Congressman Tim Huelskamp:

I went in to the meeting with an open mind, truly looking for his solutions to address America's debt crisis.  Unfortunately, I left feeling very disappointed and jaded, as I am more convinced this administration has lost its grip on reality. Secretary Geithner offered the same crisis rhetoric this administration has been using for the past 2 ½ years. He said that in the event the debt ceiling is not raised by August 2nd that it would be ‘instant lights out.’ The Obama administration has been compelling Washington to employ its Big Government strategy by predicting doomsday if Congress fails to engage in a massive spend-and-borrow spree...As the manager of the Federal Treasury, it is irresponsible for Mr. Geithner to employ such scare tactics with Americans.

Congresswoman Kristi Noem:

Secretary Geithner doesn’t get it.  A bipartisan majority in the U.S. House voted down a standalone debt limit increase just this week, proving once and for all that the only possible path to extending the debt ceiling must include a substantial plan to cut spending in the trillions.  The House Republican freshman made it very clear to the Secretary that we take our country’s debt crisis and its impact on job creation very seriously and therefore we will not give this administration a blank check to spend even more...Giving this administration even more borrowing authority with no corresponding cuts or real spending reforms goes against every promise we made on the campaign trail last year

Congressman Adam Kinzinger:

I don’t think it we really made any progress. What is obvious to me is that we’re really far apart on where we need to go and what we need to do. And it did seem like he was there more to plead the president’s case than to listen to us...He talked about letting the [Bush] tax cuts expires and raising taxes and that for us is a non starter.

Congressman Joe Walsh:

I just spent 30 minutes with [President Obama's Treasury Secretary] and I am disgusted and discourged.  He just doesn't get the debt crisis...he fails to listen to the American people who are desperate for a change of course in Washington...I know American can do better than this. And the American people deserve better than this...Mr. President I'm here to change the game.

Congressman Mo Brooks:

It was not enlightening...There was nothing new covered. Everybody understands the risk associated with not raising the debt ceiling and aside from raising taxes, the secretary offered no specific solutions...[Geithner] was alternating questions between Democrats and Republicans, which means almost all the Democrats got to speak and only a few of the Republicans got to speak...And if you can imagine, some went beyond their one-minute limit.

Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle:

The House Freshmen met with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner this afternoon. His comments confirm that President Obama is not yet serious about addressing over spending.

 

What They're Saying: On the case for a Paul Ryan candidacy

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Representative Paul Ryan may not be running for President, but there are a lot of people who are holding out hope that he'll reconsider (and soon). 

Although former Vice President Dick Cheney would prefer that the Wisconsin Congressman didn't run (though Cheney says he "worships the ground Paul Ryan walks on" - high praise from someone not known for doling out such adulation).  But with Mitch Daniels out and the public debate over Medicare heating up, a growing number of Republicans and conservatives are calling for the House Budget Committee Chairman to reevaluate what he has said about not running for President in 2012.

ConservativeHome has already launched two campaigns in support of both Paul Ryan's Medicare plan and a possible 2012 bid (you can sign up in support of either here and here.) And when it comes to social media and grassroots conservatives there are already a number of groups dedicated to drafting Paul Ryan for President on Facebook (here too), and tweets tagged with #DraftRyan #ElectRyan #Ryan2012 etc. continue to grow on Twitter.

While it remains to be seen if Ryan will actually reconsider a presidential pursuit, with less than 18 months to go before the next presidential election here's a look at what a number of politicians and pundits have said in recent months about a possible Paul Ryan bid:

ConHome Editor Ryan Streeter wrote on The Republican on Monday:

Now that Mitch Daniels is out, Paul Ryan should reconsider running for President. He shares with Daniels a kind of purity of purpose that other candidates don't have but which voters want. Ryan repeated on Meet the Press yesterday what he has said before - that he's not planning on running - but his statements are a long way from an official renunciation of presidential ambition. He might change his mind if enough people got behind an effort to draft him. 

On Tuesday, Jonah Goldberg weighed in on the draft Paul Ryan effort in an op-ed in the LA Times, commenting that:

If Ryan ran, he would probably drive the other candidates further away from his own plan while forcing them to come up with serious alternatives of their own. If he got the nomination, many think he would clean Obama's clock in the debates.

It's a lot to ask. He has three young kids and would have to get organized and funded from a cold start for a long-shot run. But politics is about moments, and this one is calling him. Unless someone suddenly rises to the challenge, the cries of "Help us, Paul Ryan, you're our only hope!" will only get louder.

D.G. Myers posted via Commentary Magazine's blog:

Ryan’s ability to untangle complicated policy ideas, as displayed in the five-minute video that Pete posted, is second to none. Moreover, Ryan’s generous impulse to clarify and explain—to treat policy disagreements respectfully—is the ethos of a great statesman. Small wonder that Jonah Goldberg is chanting over at National Review Online: “Run, Paul Ryan, Run.

The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol "half jokingly" pushed for a Ryan-Rubio run back in January, commenting:

Having just returned from the e21 and Manhattan Institute-sponsored Conversation with Paul Ryan (very ably conducted by Paul Gigot)--and having seen Marco Rubio speak recently as well, I'll just say this: Wouldn't it be easier just to agree now on a Ryan-Rubio ticket, and save everyone an awful lot of time, effort, and money over the next year and a half?

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in an interview earlier this week that:

Paul’s about real leadership. I think that that’s what this public so desperately wants to do right now. They want to see Washington that will lead. They don’t want to see individuals that will dismiss the current problems as something that we can just sweep under the rug.

Back in April, AEI’s Steven Hayward commented:

Ryan looks like the one person who could electrify the Republican electorate, appeal to independent voters, and sustain an argument against Obama that would make for a decisive election.

Ryan is young, has young children, and has lots of reasons to wait. But one can't choose one's moments in politics. I can imagine a set of circumstances in which his budget proposal gets little traction against White House intransigence, and by the fall the political winds are such that entering the race makes so much sense that he has to do it. And increasingly he looks to me like the single best candidate the Republicans could field next year.

On CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, FreedomWorks chief and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey said of a Ryan run:

We have about two million activists across the country and, frankly, we are disappointed...Now, obviously, we have to start looking, and I was just saying this morning, maybe it’s time to start drafting Paul Ryan.”

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin blogged in late April that:

Ryan has said he doesn’t want to run, but sometimes the question of “want to run” is a luxury. There are times when the moment presents itself, the party and the country are receptive, and there is no one else quite as compelling. Think Bill Clinton in 1992. Ryan has some time, though not much, to decide whether he wants to fill the obvious gap in the GOP field. And if party activists, insiders, Tea Partyers and operatives think Ryan is the man, then they’d better start making their wishes known.

RealQuiet on RedState.com posted back in March:

Mr. Ryan has a plan to preserve the foundations that this country was founded on, maintain our freedom, and to stop the economic free fall, stabilize, and increase the prosperity of the economic engine that has been key in making this country what it was and what it could be again. 

Sign me up Mr. Ryan, I am with you.

According to Andrew Stiles, Congressman Devin Nunes fully backs the idea of a Paul Ryan candidacy. As "one of the first members of the Draft Paul Ryan facebook group", Nunes commented:

It would certainly be great for the party and the country if he did run.

Stiles also points out Congressman Tom McClintock’s support, who recently said:

Paul Ryan would make an excellent candidate and an excellent president..I've not heard any rumors that he's seriously considering it…But I still think it's a pretty good idea.

Washington post columnist Charles Krauthammer, a long time Ryan advocate, said earlier this week on Fox News:

This is his moment -- even though he's a young man -- this is the moment where I think he could do it, and he would be the one man who could make the argument, which will be the central argument in the campaign next year over the size and scope of government.

It's his time. I wouldn't just ask him or cajole him. I'd get a posse up there.

Adding in another Fox News roundtable on Tuesday:

I hope he feels personally wounded, he needs to be vindicated…I think he’s in a position where he’s the carrier of the idea…there’s nobody else who can do it on that idea

The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes, also during a Fox News discussion, said of Ryan's recent remarks against running:

I think he is going to reconsider, I think he has to reconsider, because if you take his argument seriously…and that unless we do the kinds of things he’s proposing, that this country won’t be the same country anymore…it make his arguments about spending more time with his family appear less serious…is it more important for Payl Ryan to read his kids an extra story or is it more important for him to run and try to save the country? I do really think he might change his mind

Adding later that:

Movement conservatives not only are unhappy with the current field, but they are eager to see someone like Paul Ryan.

The ins, the probably ins and the maybes: Conservatives reflect on the 2012 race after Daniels

Natalie Gonnella

With Mitch Daniels officially opting out of a presidential run, political pundits have been busy weighing in on the remaning pool of presidential prospects.

From the declared to the undecided, here's a look at what a number of commentators had to say today about the ins, the probably ins, and the maybes:

Clive Crook, The Atlantic:

For the moment, the impression that the GOP field is second-rate will be strengthened. Romney is a formidable money-raiser but hobbled, so far as the GOP primary electorate is concerned, by health care. Pawlenty, who says he will announce tomorrow, is still a mostly unknown quantity in the country at large, with close-to-zero name recognition and single-digit poll ratings. In one way, Daniels's departure makes more room for Jon Huntsman. Huntsman is impressive too, with better looks and added charisma compared with Daniels, but he was seen as too moderate for the GOP even before he took his job (ambassador to China) with the Obama administration.

Mike Murphy, Meet the Press:

For real voters, it hasn’t even begun yet, and I think there’s only one last Hamlet question, which is Christ Christie of New Jersey, who is a big Republican star. Will he take another look at a late entry, which I think is possible. That would shake up the race. If not, I think you’re going to have a lot of noise candidates around. But it’s going to be down to Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty and then a kind of entertaining candidate who won’t get nominated — maybe Herman Cain.

Matthew Dowd, ABC's This Week:

I think what you’re going to see in the next four or five months is suprising candiates who are going to get in who are not mentioned right now. I actually think that Gov. Perry in Texas is probably going to reconsider this. It seems to be a good moment for a guy that is very popular among [the] Tea Party, he’s very states-righty, very anti-federal government, can raise a ton of money. I think Gov. Christie in New Jersey is going to be pushed to reconsider this. I think there’s going to be some surprising entries into this race.

Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard blog:

It would be unfair to call the current field a vacuum. But it doesn't exactly represent an overflowing of political talent. And insofar as politics abhors even a near-vacuum, others are bound to get in. I now think the odds are better than 50-50 that both Rick Perry and Paul Ryan run. I also now think they (and others—Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, John Bolton) may not feel they have to decide until after Labor Day—or maybe even until October or even November. The field could well remain open and fluid until Thanksgiving.

Fun!

Jonah Goldberg, NRO's The Corner:

For a couple weeks I’ve been hearing from people that I have to take a fresh look at Herman Cain.  I was happy to do so.  I watched his appearance on Fox News Sunday.  From his answers on the budget and flat tax to his clearly flummoxed response on the Palestinian “right of return,” I have to say I was underwhelmed.

Ryan Streeter, ConservativeHome:

No other 2012 contender has presented credible evidence that he or she can tackle the biggest issue facing us as a country. Our fiscal crisis is the defining issue of our generation, and Daniels is the one candidate whose track record matches the moment. No one else can convincingly demonstrate that their past experience lends itself well to our country’s growing fiscal mess. 

George Will, ABC's This Week:

This caps an excellent week for one person, and that’s Tim Pawlenty. Huckabee out puts in play the evangelical Christian vote, which is almost half the vote in Republican primaries. So Tim Pawlenty is well-positioned.

What They're Saying: showing strong support for Israel, Republicans respond to President Obama's Middle East speech

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

President Obama yesterday "hit the reset" button on US Middle East policy, but in doing so endorsed significant concessions on the part of Israel, drawing strong criticism from Republican politicians and pundits alike.

In calling for a return to pre-1967 borders, the President appeared to publicly "throw Israel under the bus," once again undermining their position in future negotiations.  As George Will said in a post for ABC News:

Obama should have said nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, his prior statements (about Israel housing construction, and a deadline for a peace settlement) having made matters worse. Obama's idea--Israel's, too--is "two states for two people." Now, there is nothing more to be said until a Palestinian leader also says that. Obama's dilation on the 1967 borders makes matters worse: Borders are what negotiations are supposed to be about, not what is to be stipulated before negotiations

And despite the fact that the President has outlined significant demands of the Israeli government, he failed to also adequately address key concerns related to the Palestinian leadership and (as Majority Leader Eric Cantor noted) "their unhelpful game of sidestepping negotiations and failing to put an end to terrorism," a substantial worry considering the US is still providing aid to the Palestinian Authority (another issue Obama overlooked in his speech).

Since assuming office in January, GOP freshman have offered bold support for the state of Israel. And although Republicans welcomed the President's new found commitment to democracy and human rights within the Middle East, many have condemned yesterday's remarks for endorsing major Israeli concessions while failing to amply address concerns stemming from the policies of the Palestinian leadership.

With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set to meet with President Obama today and a joint session of Congress next week, here's a look at what several Republican freshman had to say in response to the President's  remarks:

Senator Roy Blunt commented via Twitter: 

@RoyBlunt: Very concerned President believes unilateral concessions by Israel, including redefining its borders = pathway to peace. Doesn’t make sense.

@RoyBlunt: Supporting free peoples has always guided our foreign policy. Unfortunately Pres Obama has been unsteady in advocating these principles.

Congressman Allen West offered his views via his congressional website:

Today's endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state…

...Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital. It's time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions.

Commenting via Facebook, Congressman Robert Dold said:

Regarding President Obama's remarks today about the Middle East, it is not for the U.S. or any other outside entity to declare the terms and draw the boundaries for future Israeli and Palestinian states. Just as Israel's security must not be compromised, so too must its sovereignty as an independent nation be protected.

Also responding by way of Twitter, Senator Mike Lee tweeted:

@SenMikeLee: I condemn in the strongest possible terms the President's irresponsible suggestion that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders. #utpol

In a statement on his website, Senator Pat Toomey stressed that:

The president’s reference to pre-1967 borders as the basis for peace undermines our ally Israel’s negotiating position, demonstrates insensitivity to the security threats Israel faces on a daily basis and ignores the historical context that has shaped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for more than 60 years...After 60 years of defending itself against aggression and brutal acts of terror, Israel deserves the right, at the very least, to maintain borders that will ensure its security.

Posting his response via Facebook, Congressman Joe Walsh commented:

This speech is another example of President Obama throwing our allies to the wolves in a vain attempt to appease our enemies. The President needs to make it clear that there will be no chance for peace unless Palestinian leadership distances itself from terrorism and recognizes Israel’s right to exist. Once more, Obama failed to demonstrate to the Palestinian people and to the rest of the world that the United States stands with Israel, and that we will only support a peace that is negotiated in good faith by both parties.

Senator Dan Coats said of the speech:

I strongly question the president’s timing in announcing this significant policy shift as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu arrives to meet with the administration and address Congress...President Obama’s support for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders seriously harms prospects for successful negotiations and a peaceful region.

Referring to Obama's demands of Israel as "unbelievable" on Twitter, Governor Rick Perry added in a statement that:

President Obama's speech today continues a misguided policy of alienating our traditional allies, in this case Israel, one of our strongest partners in the war on terror. As someone who has visited Israel numerous times, I know that it is impracticable to revert to the 1967 lines. President Obama is asking our Israeli friends to give up too much security and territory as a prelude to a renewed peace process.

Congressman Jeb Hensarling commented that:

I’m pleased to hear the President articulate the United States’ longstanding support for the democratic rights of all people, especially those currently risking so much for democratic reform in the midst of the ongoing ’Arab Spring.’ However, calling on our ally Israel to reinstate its 1967 borders is a deeply wrong-minded approach that ignores the obvious reality beneath the problems that persist in that conflict—namely the Palestinian Authority’s dangerous alignment with Hamas.

Possible 2012 candidate Michele Bachmann challenged President Obama to "reverse course":

I am calling on President Obama to reverse course and clearly renounce the position which he spelled out today. This is an insult to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the day before the Prime Minister is scheduled to come to the United States. President Obama’s remarks are clearly in opposition to the position that Israel has taken in regards to its own borders. These remarks do not reflect the will of the constituents in my district, nor do I believe that they represent the will of the majority of the American people.

 America has stood with Israel since President Harry Truman recognized Israel a mere 11 minutes after Israel became a state in 1948. But during his tenure as President of the United States, President Obama has initiated a policy which shows contempt for Israel’s concern and safety.