Unless you’ve been a state legislator, served on legislative staff, been a reporter covering a state capitol beat, or a state government relations professional, chances are you hadn’t heard much of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, until the last several months. In recent months, ALEC has become a target of a sloppily-orchestrated, but well-funded effort by conspiracy theorists and anarchists (think “Occupy”) who care more about creating another dark, sinister boogeyman to scare you rather than honestly and seriously confronting the challenges before us.

I’ve been intimately involved with ALEC for over fifteen years. I thought I’d share an honest perspective about ALEC and what it is and isn’t, rather than have you fall prey to the nonsense-chanting, drum-beaters in the tin foil hats. First, ALEC doesn’t exist in a vacuum. A number of legislative organizations similar to ALEC exist across the country. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), like ALEC, brings together legislators and policymakers from across the country who listen to and work with members of the private sector in an effort to promote public policy and learn about what’s worked — and what hasn’t worked — in their respective states.

Both organizations communicate with federal lawmakers and the federal bureaucracy to identify how federal policies impact states, how policies can be implemented more effectively, where states can do a better job of achieving certain objectives and where taxpayer dollars can be applied most fairly and effectively in meeting identified societal needs. In addition to ALEC and NCSL, a wide range of other groups fulfill similar missions, such as the Council of State Governments (CSG), the State Legislative Leaders’ Foundation (SLLF), the National Governors’ Association (NGA) and others.

ALEC is being portrayed as something different than some of those groups. And, ALEC is different. It’s different in that it adheres to it’s very open and publicly-stated philosophy of advancing the “Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty, through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector, the federal government and the general public.” I’ll give you an example of how that plays out in practice. When the federal government imposes mandates upon the states (i.e. Medicaid) while some groups might seek higher federal funding levels or more flexibility to fulfill those mandates, because of its limited government philosophy, a group like ALEC might be more inclined to oppose the mandates outright or suggest even more freedom for states to fulfill a mission (i.e. providing healthcare for the poor) in their own ways, less-restricted (or unrestricted) by federal controls.

Many of the recent attacks on ALEC seem to focus to a great extent on ALEC’s work to promote “model legislation” to be considered in states across the country as some sort of devious plot to avoid the legislative process in the states. Nothing could be further from the truth. These absurd attacks ignore the reality that other groups promote goals and objectives in public policy all the time. It’s a lengthy and tedious process to have proposed legislation achieve “model bill” status endorsed by groups such as NCSL or ALEC. And these “model bills,” if introduced by a legislator in a particular state, have no special status or fast-track to becoming law. They are merely bills written and introduced by a legislator, that must go through the exact same legislative process as any other bill introduced in that state. They must be drafted and introduced by an elected legislator, they’re distributed for cosponsorship opportunities, they’re written about and reported on by the media, and they must go through the committee and legislative process in two houses of the state legislature (except for Nebraska which is a unicameral) and be discussed, debated, criticized, lauded, amended and voted upon — all subject to the same open records and open meetings requirements as any other piece of legislation.

There is nothing nefarious or scary about ALEC (or NCSL). In fact, as someone who has worked with and been involved with both organizations, I strongly believe that both play an important role in the public policy process. First of all, both bring together legislators from across the country to discuss common problems they face in their states. Policymakers learn from legislative colleagues (and yes, regulated industries, academics and think tanks) how different approaches have worked, or have failed, in other states. Those policymakers benefit from the wisdom of those with greater experience and familiarity with issues than they may have themselves. And those who have confronted problems in their states are afforded the opportunity to share their wisdom and experience with others who benefit from it.

I have served as a state private sector chairman for ALEC and I’ve previously served over ten years on both ALEC’s “Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development” and “Tax & Fiscal Policy” task forces. I’ve worked to support model resolutions for consideration, given presentations to task forces and been involved in the shaping of policy. I’ve also worked to promote public policy objectives within NCSL. In fact, it’s not strange for some legislation to be endorsed and supported by both ALEC and NCSL (particularly when it involves the federal government mandating unfunded or underfunded activity to be implemented at the state level). And endorsement of a policy shouldn’t bring with it the suggestion than it is anything more than it is — proposed legislative solutions that have been discussed, debated and supported by organizations that represent the state perspective in the federal/state balance of power.

Vigorous debates and dialogue within ALEC task forces provide extraordinary opportunities for legislators to be exposed to expert (and widely varying) opinions on the issues confronting their particular states. While it might be difficult for an Australian expert on public/private transportation partnerships to visit all fifty states and share Australia’s experience with the issue, that expert can visit ALEC or NCSL and be heard by legislators from around the entire country. Isn’t it better to give policymakers opportunity to hear and participate in significant discussion, debate and consideration of issues with the benefit of hearing from a variety of voices from other states, scholars from around the world and from those in a particular industry who will be affected by the proposals?

Much of the criticism you may have seen or will continue to see about ALEC seems to be centered around the fact that the private sector is involved in ALEC and the ALEC process. Frankly, this as a strength of ALEC, rather than a detriment. And as much as the critics would have you believe that the private sector speaks to these issues from a unified voice, nothing could be further from the truth.

While industry can be unified on an issue, they are just as likely to be divided on issues. I’ll give you an example. All states and the federal government face challenges in building and maintaining transportation infrastructure — roads and bridges. State transportation policies vary from state to state. State fuel taxes work in different ways. Some state gas taxes are indexed for inflation, while others are flat taxes. Some state gas taxes may go to the general fund, others may be dedicated exclusively to a transportation fund (which may or may not be raided by state leaders). Federal gas taxes are applied at the state level and sent to Washington. Some states get more money back from the federal government than others do. Some states face challenges in building highways through rural areas connecting population centers and others are home to large urban communities with vast infrastructure needs.

When such issues are discussed and debated within the framework of an ALEC (or NCSL) task force or committee, the public members of that task force (who largely are committee members or chairpersons of transportation committees in their respective states) hear from professors who spend their lives studying transportation funding around the world. They might hear from international experts who explain how crowded highway issues were confronted successfully in London or Hong Kong or how roads are funded and built across the vast continent of Australia. They might hear from the truckers union representatives whose members’ livelihoods are impacted by various methods of funding roads. They might hear from private companies such as Federal Express or UPS that rely upon roadways to deliver goods, while remaining profitable and continuing to employ people across the country. They might hear from experts on tax policy about the pros and cons of various funding methods. And, they might hear from representatives of the US Department of Transportation and various state transportation officials and legislative colleagues across the country. From all of these perspectives, members learn what some like about different alternatives, what they don’t like, what’s worked and what hasn’t, and how constituents liked or didn’t like specific proposals in their states.

The end result? Those legislators who serve on that ALEC task forces are vastly better informed than they otherwise would be. They understand issues from a myriad of perspectives they might not have as an isolated member of a legislative committee in Idaho or Mississippi. Additionally, they’ve developed personal and professional relationships with international experts and legislative colleagues across the country and they’re able to pick up the phone to explore issues as they confront them in their states. They are better legislators because of their willingness to spend time and energy as a member of an ALEC task force.

And despite the nonsense you may hear from ALEC critics, if these task forces reach consensus and agree on “model legislation” or a “resolution” or “statement of principles” related to a policy challenge, does the legislation get any special treatment if they choose to introduce it in their states? Nope. It’s introduced. It’s discussed in committee. It’s debated. The public can weigh in and testify, the private sector can testify, state departments may testify and they still need to pass a bill through committee, pass both houses of the legislature and be presented to the Governor who is free to sign it or veto it and in some cases line-item veto the parts out that he or she doesn’t support. That is what democracy looks like.

In all of my years working in the political, public policy and government affairs arena, I’ve had occasion to work for a US Senator, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Senator and a State Representative in addition to over fifteen years of work in state government relations. On almost a weekly basis, I meet with or communicate with state legislators from across the country. Without exception, I recommend that they get involved with groups like ALEC, NCSL, CSG, SLLF and other legislative and policy groups across the country. I recommend that they get to know their colleagues, share their expertise and experience, and benefit from that of others. And I can tell you that those who choose that path and are willing to give up significant portions of their time and put effort in becoming more engaged and informed by involvement with groups like ALEC are among the best elected representatives this country has to offer.

So when you see the well-funded and coordinated attacks against ALEC that you are likely to see in the coming months, please recognize them for what they are — a misleading, unfair, inaccurate political attacks and nothing more.

 

 

 

One thing has become painfully clear to me in the last year or so. If your cause is fighting excessive government spending and control over our lives, your fight will never be over. There is no end zone. There is no goal line. There is no touchdown dance. You work in the trenches, fighting the expansion of government power and concurrent threat to freedom that expansion represents. The battle is never won. The game is never over. You best recognize this reality and live your life with some level of comfort knowing that it’s going to be built around this fundamental and most virtuous pursuit.

It’s time for all conservatives to strap on their helmets and get in the game. It’s been commonly reported that Benjamin Franklin was approached by a woman at the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia as delegates left Independence Hall for the last time. “What have you given us,” she asked. “A Republic,” replied Franklin “if you can keep it.” I’m here to tell you that our Republic is in danger of failure. You don’t need to fight for a day or through another election. If you understand what’s at stake, you need to make a commitment to fight for the rest of your life.

Edmund Burke once commented that “nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.” Please consider Burke’s words as you take a full inventory of the state of our nation, the state of your state and what you have to offer to put us on a better path and keep us on that path. If you keep up on the news by following like-minded souls on Facebook and Twitter, that’s wonderful. Bypassing the filter of the traditional media and sharing reputable, important news through the tools available to you is very helpful in this war. But if that’s all you’re doing, I’m here to tell you that you aren’t doing enough.

Leaders in this battle who choose to serve in public office, best understand that their true commitment to cutting the size and reach of government, may result in their political careers (at least in the short-term) coming to an end. But it is the job of people like you and me to minimize those casualties. In Wisconsin and Ohio, both states with a very strong labor union tradition, leaders are stepping up to change the status quo and return sanity to the process of spending public funds. Heroes aren’t being made in places like Wisconsin and Ohio, they are being revealed. To the extent they suffer politically and lose legislative battles, legal battles and reelection battles, another nail is put in the coffin for the Republic of which Franklin spoke.

The battle is about freedom. The battle is about existence. The battle will never end. The government monster is like the terminator. “It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.” As the size of government grows, the freedom of individuals is proportionally reduced. As the spending of government grows, the liberty of individuals is proportionally reduced.

Edmund Burke also said “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Well good man and woman, you best stand up and do something meaningful. Two things will be critical in our effort to make progress in this never-ending struggle. Just as you may tithe 10 percent or more of your income to your church or other noble causes, I’m going to encourage you to consider a similar investment in America’s future. Give money to those non-deductible, political causes and candidates that need it. Even little bits of money. And help raise money and turn out voters. And always support and encourage those warriors on the field of battle willing to put themselves on the line to fight the government terminator. Thank them and encourage them.

Giving money does more than simply help the recipient. It also allows you to be personally invested in the cause. Personally invest in a lot of causes. Not with lip service alone, but with your hard-earned cash. If you don’t have a lot, set aside $100 and donate $10 each to ten important causes (or $20 each to five important causes) and then invest yourself with time and sweat and effort to personally see those causes succeed. You become a lot more credible fundraiser if you yourself have invested. When you are able to tell people on Facebook, on Twitter, in emails, in phone calls or personal conversations while walking door-to-door that you yourself have also personally invested your hard-earned dough in a cause, your appeal to others is much more likely to succeed. And tell them that it’s important that they give for all the reasons outlined above.

Following the news and chatting about it on Facebook and Twitter is a fine pursuit, but if that’s all you’re doing, you may be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. If you want to see a change in this country different than the change delivered after Barack Obama’s election in 2008, then start by becoming and demonstrating the change we need to make that happen.

And one more thing — laugh once in a while. Take a deep breath. Remember this is a marathon, not a sprint. Nothing is more tedious than being confronted by an angry liberal, with a vein popping out of his intense forehead as he lectures you about your ignorance. Don’t be the conservative version of that. At the end of the day, you’ll be much more effective in reaching other people if you truly learn to enjoy your mission and don’t just focus on the destination, but enjoy the ride.

Author’s note:  This post was also shared at www.punditleague.us – the author, Brian Fojtik, can be followed on Twitter @PositiveEnerG

I visited Wisconsin last Monday to attend the swearing in of the new Republican Governor, Republican Speaker of the Assembly and Republican Senate Majority Leader, among others.  I first went to work for a Republican in the Wisconsin state legislature in 1987 and I’ve been involved with the political and governmental process there for the last 23 years.  The inaugural ball Monday evening was like a high school reunion for me to catch up with old friends who have been engaged in the battle for Wisconsin’s government for years.  It’s fantastic to see good friends whom I greatly respect assume leadership roles through all levels of state government.

The first two acts of Governor Scott Walker were to call a special session of the state legislature to pass a jobs program that reduces taxes and fees on government, eliminates bureaucratic red tape that is stifling job growth -  and also to walk a letter over to Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen that provides him with the authority to join the legal challenges to Obamacare on behalf of the State of Wisconsin.  All in all, a good day’s work.

But on Tuesday, the real work began.  Now it falls on Governor Walker and new Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald and his brother, Scott Fitzgerald the new Senate leader to not only craft and pass a economic development jobs program, but necessarily deal with what is expected to be over a $3 billion budget shortfall without raising taxes.  From the looks of things, the challenges faced in Wisconsin will be seen across much of the country.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), spending pressures have opened up a budget gap of over $26 billion in the states for 2011, with an expected shortfall totaling over $82 billion in 2012.  Much of the Obama “stimulus program” was actually simply an opportunity for the federal government to borrow more money and bailout state governments across the country.  The loss of those one-time funds, slow revenue growth and spending pressure (often from state programs that are unfunded mandates from the federal government) make addressing these budget challenges particularly perilous.

So now that conservatives have worked to successfully impact elections and deliver the US House of Representatives and as many as 19 state legislative houses to Republican control, many conservatives are now focused on holding the US House in 2012, winning the US Senate and defeating President Obama (as they should be).  I would suggest, however, that there is a lot more for conservatives to do if we want any prayer of building on the electoral successes of 2010.

I think the job for conservative activists now is primarily two-fold.  First, as many are already doing, it’s important to hold Republicans accountable.  The recent election results were not so much a positive affirmation of Republican leadership, than they were a rejection of Democrats.  There is no shortage of conservative commentators, bloggers and tweeters willing to hold those who ran for office as conservatives accountable for their election promises.

You need to know that conservatives must do more than hold Republicans accountable.   An equally important priority will be to loudly and proudly stand with conservative leaders and Republicans who do act in a manner consistent with the conservative promises made during election campaigns.  There is a reason that spending generally doesn’t get cut in Washington or in state capitols across the country.  It’s because whenever government creates a new program and funds it with your tax dollars, it creates a constituency.  It creates a soon-to-be-entrenched special interest.

Each of those government programs and every corporate and social welfare program has a constituency that depends upon that funding for its livelihood.  Paid lobbyists work to secure more funding.  Well-oiled public relations machines support the continued expansion and funding of these programs.  And rest assured if Republicans across the country have the guts to make the kind of cuts that Governor Walker promises in Wisconsin and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) promises in Washington, there will be blood-curdling screams and well-articulated attacks on Republicans making those cuts.  The mainstream media will give disproportionate attention to those cuts.  It will be ugly.

Republicans will be portrayed by Democrats, by special interest groups, by talented public relations firms, the mainstream media and paid astroturf activists as evil and mean-spirited defenders of the rich.  They will be accused of destroying education of our youth.  They will be accused of kicking Grandma  off her health care and on to the curb.  They will be accused of declaring war on public employees, on police and fireman and on poor, struggling working families.  And many folks targeted with this public relations assault will begin to believe it.  They will indicate in increasing numbers that they are not comfortable with these mean-spirited Republicans.

That is why conservative activists, Facebookers, bloggers, tweeters, commentators and pundits must stand up loudly and proudly and fight this effort.  They must stand up and support and encourage elected officials with the courage to face this onslaught and still make real cuts.  At the end of the day, elected officials generally do only what the people encourage or allow them to do.  If they stand up for conservative values, it’s the primary responsibility of conservatives to have their backs.

This post originally appeared on Pundit League.  Readers may follow the author of this piece on Twitter @PositiveEnerG.

Wisconsin may skew left, but voters are independent, thoughtful and more than willing to support conservatives — like Scott Walker and Paul Ryan — who meaningfully confront issues. Reince Priebus was born, raised and has succeeded in this environment. Ryan has appeared in Priebus announcement video and Priebus has gotten additional support from Ron Johnson and Scott Walker. Of Priebus, the conservative Walker said: “He is exactly what the national GOP needs — a skilled and proven leader who never forgot the roots of the Party.”

Sound crazy?  Well, it’s not.  Socialist Bernie Sanders and Tea Party Senator Jim Demint are effectively working right now (or at least pretending to do so to impress their constituencies) in fighting against the tax compromise being considered in Washington.  Politically, it’s easy to posture against what’s going to happen and throw rhetorical red meat to your masses. Make no mistake, that’s what both of them are doing.  We’re hearing fevered screams from everyone on the left and from a sizable percentage of powerful voices on the right calling for grassroots action to push for rejection of the “tax compromise” reached between Congress and the President.

If you noticed the typical and deeply disheartening chorus from the left, you would have learned that this “compromise” is intolerable and it must not be accepted because it somehow represents a handout to the rich, who are evil and have caused all of our economic pain and must be stopped.  Critics on the right have pointed out that the bill contains excessive spending, a counterproductive expansion of unfunded unemployment benefits, special-interest ethanol subsidies and ugly earmarks.

I agree with all the criticisms from the right.  The bill is far from perfect.  It’s ugly.  What’s wrong with the bill, however, is only one third of this debate at best.  There are other questions that need to be considered when one considers the fate of this compromise.  First, if you urge opposition to the bill and achieve its defeat, what is the realistic alternative?  “Realistic” is the operative word here.  My friends on the right opposing this bill have said we should sack the whole deal and negotiate from a position of strength when we are in control of the House.

Let’s be honest.  If you are urging opposition to this bill, you are supporting a tax increase.  If the bill is defeated, the Bush tax cuts will expire.  There is a whole schedule of tax hikes scheduled to take effect.  Personal tax increases will increase in 2011 and 2012.  The tax rate at which a majority of small businesses pay taxes will increase by 40 percent.  The capital gains tax will increase.  The top dividend tax rate will rise from 15 to nearly 40 percent.  The marriage penalty returns and the child tax credit would be cut in half.  And, the Death Tax will increase to 55 percent, rather than the 35 percent included in the compromise.  Oppose this compromise and you are supporting those increases.  Period.

As Grover Norquist from Americans for Tax Reform points out, one of the gravest consequences of opposing this bill is that the number of families affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would rise from 4 million to 28 million in the 2010 tax year.  Defeat the compromise and you are supporting a tax increase for 24 million American families.  While Norquist supports repeal of the AMT, he’s insightful enough to recognize that a one-year solution here is better than none at all.

Senator Jim Demint and Club for Growth have made compelling cases about what’s wrong with the bill.    Erick Erickson of RedState has said he thinks it needs to be killed, but wisely indicated that it’s not without a gamble.  It’s a big gamble.  The reality is that urging support for defeat of this bill is urging support for all of those tax increases taking effect.  Congressman Paul Ryan, the incoming House Budget Chair, is a cooler head.  Ryan contends that while he finds the compromise deeply distasteful and prefers permanent tax rate reductions, stopping all of these tax increases from taking effect in January is the paramount priority.

Ryan understands something fundamental that too many critics on the right are forgetting.  Nancy Pelosi is still the Speaker of the House.  Harry Reid is still the Senate Majority Leader.  Barack Obama is still the President.  If those three choose to let the Bush tax cuts expire and all these tax increases take effect, they can.  If they want to allow four times the number of earmarks in the bill, they can.  If they want to triple ethanol subsidies beyond the atrocity contained in this bill, they can.  If they want extend unemployment benefits longer and increase them, they can.  They can do whatever they want.  Stop the tax increases now.  Work on the rest in January.

With a Democrat-controlled Senate and Barack Obama in the White House, it will be difficult to pass anything in January.  Yes, Republicans will have increased leverage from the House majority.  The most meaningful application of that leverage will be in stopping things, not passing things.  That leverage won’t stop these tax increases in January.   Because they’ll already be in effect.  Let’s stop the tax increases now while we can and use increased leverage to try and fix the flawed portions of the bill or at least embarrass Democrats and wayward Republicans who won’t let it happen.  A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.

This blog post is reprinted from the original version on The Pundit League.

The first African-American woman elected to the United States Senate, Senator Carol Mosely Braun is running for Mayor of Chicago.  She’s a Democrat.  Hispanic insider and former Chief of Staff to Mayor Daley Gary Chico is running for Mayor of Chicago.  He is a Democrat.  And, famously, former Bill Clinton fundraiser and advisor, Chicago Congressman and Chief of Staff to President Obama Rahm Emanuel is running for Mayor.

First, let me tell you that Chicago politics are a fascinating bloodsport.  While we may, as a matter of principle, be disgusted by much of the activity and behavior undertaken in the pursuit of office by some, it’s still fun to watch.  Let’s be honest.  Absent a high profile, wealthy, independent, Republican running in this non-partisan and likely crowded primary it will be a Democratic game.  And though you may be surprised to hear it, there will be spirited, reasonable and responsible comments made in pursuit of this office and some real discussion about what is best for the great city and it’s residents.  Enough of them to fit in a thimble. But, the rest will be like a version of the Jerry Springer show which until very recently was actually filmed in Chicago.

It’s begun.  The headlines in the Chicago Sun-Times screamed at me with the big picture of a grimacing President Obama, a small shot of a scholarly looking Carol Mosely Braun in her reading glasses and large looming headline that proclaimed “Braun’s [take] on Obama’s Shellacking: IT WAS RAHM’S FAULT.”

The article, written by the talented and professional Lynn Sweet of the Sun-Times included Braun’s criticism of Rahm’s role in the recent failures of Democrats in the mid-term elections. Rahm Emanuel was called out by a liberal Democrat of some note for “cutting and running” on the President.  He was criticized for his handling of the “Stupak affair” and abortion during the health care debate.  He was criticized for negotiating only to the right on health care and never to the left.  He was criticized for recruiting candidates for office when he chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee who were less than pure pro-choice candidates.

And, of course, Emanuel was roundly criticized by both Braun and Chico for leaving Chicago to attend a fundraiser hosted by his brother Ari Emanuel, the super-agent to the stars in Hollywood and co-hosted by some big name Hollywood players.  It’s great theater.  Some of the accusations will be true.  Because most consider Emanuel the frontrunner, he will be attacked by fellow Democrats for anything and everything that went wrong with the first two years of the Obama administration.

If you’re interested in exposing some of these tidbits or revealing the duplicity or leftist leanings of the Obama administration, you best pay attention.  The smart candidates for the GOP nomination (and potentially the Democratic nomination) for President in 2012 should be paying attention.  I’ll give you an example.  Braun spokesperson Renee Ferguson singled out the negotiating and concessions to Bart Stupak on abortion in order to pass health care reform.  Well, conservative pro-life activists have pretty much identified the concessions as meaningless and indicated that Stupak sold out the pro-life movement. Emanuel is biting his tongue now.  But if any of these attacks draw blood and his numbers slip as a result, he won’t have that luxury.  He could come out and say the Stupak “concession” was meaningless and not worth the paper it was written on.  Congressional Republicans and Presidential candidates might be interested in such an admission.  It could draw a rebuke from the White House. And obviously both the White House and Emanuel have a lot of powerful (and wealthy) friends with interests in shutting this kind of debate down. And maybe others (Hillary or Republicans) who might like to see it continue.

Prominent Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote a piece on the morning after the election titled “Prepare for the Battering Rahm.”  This is going to get good and it will be ever in a few months.  Just keep watching.  That’s all I’m saying.

The universe is changed. How many of you on Twitter today were on Twitter when Hillary Clinton started campaigning for the Presidency and the young upstart from Illinois came on the national scene? Be honest. None of you (excepting the IT professionals, of course) had ever even heard of Twitter. And many of you aren't even there yet. If you joined Twitter in 2008, theTwitter you knew then is already very different than the Twitter we experience today. How many of you were on Facebook? Not nearly as many. Not me.

“I have known Pamela Gorman and her family for years and have long admired her work in the Arizona Legislature. Pamela is the type of leader that understands that we don’t only need to fight the liberal Democrats in Congress, but we need to make sure that our own Republican Party remains anchored by conservative values, as well. Senator Gorman shares my Christian faith and commitment to protecting innocent life, and reducing the size of government.”

In essence, if we want to feel proud of our American leaders, we need to elect leaders we can be proud of.

Gorman believes that the fights taking place in Republican primaries across the country aren't only about defeating Democrats in November, but they are something more. Perhaps Gorman is the only official Tea Party endorsed candidate in the race because she recognizes that while the Democratic Party represents a real current threat, Republicans have too often failed to deliver what voters demand and what the country needs. Gorman has preached not only throwing out the Democrats, but also ensuring that the right Republicans win so that the Party is not dominated by moderates who don't have the stomach for the serious medicine the country needs.