Remarks by Mehlman

Remarks of Kenneth B. Mehlman Chairman, Republican National Committee Southern Republican Leadership Conference

March 10, 2006
1:00 p.m.

Thank you, Senator, for that kind introduction. [Senator Lamar Alexander]

And thank you for hosting us here in Tennessee.

This is a great place to hold this conference … and not least because of the leadership that you and Senator Frist have shown over the years.

With Senator Frist retiring this year, there are some big shoes to fill.

And I look forward to working together to make sure those shoes are filled by another strong, principled Republican.

Since the beginning of political parties in this country, party chairmen have had a simple job at events like this: Come and tell you the next election is the most important in your lifetime.

Usually we’re not telling the truth.

Every election can’t be the most important.

But sometimes we do find ourselves at a crossroads.

In the 1940s, when we first confronted imperial communism, election choices defined how America defended freedom for a generation.

In the 1960s, when we redeemed our Constitution’s promise by protecting civil rights, election choices expanded freedom to cover all Americans.

In the 1980s, when we won the cold war, election choices exported freedom to tens of millions.

Each of those were crossroads moments … when the outcome of elections was that important.

Now, with a global war on terror and worldwide competition for jobs, we once again find ourselves at a crossroads … and the decisions we will make this year and in coming years will define the scope of freedom for a generation.

Consider the war on terror.

For almost a generation, terrorists have declared war on free nations.

From the 1972 Olympic games in Munich, when terrorists murdered 11 Israeli athletes and the United Nations condemned Israel’s response, not the terrorist act …

… to the 444 days that American hostages were held in Iran, met with just one under-planned and under-manned rescue attempt …

… to our withdrawal from Beirut in 1983 after terrorists attacked the Marine barracks …

… to our withdrawal in 1993 from Mogadishu …

… to Riyadh in 1995 … Khobar Towers in 1996 … the embassy attacks in 1998 … and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 …

The terrorist attacks grew bolder as the enemy saw our responses as weak.

And on September 11, they brought this war to our shores.

But on September 12, under the leadership of our President, the terrorists finally got war in return.

The central front of this war is Iraq.

Osama bin Laden’s number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has said that al Qaeda is waiting for America to pull out of Iraq, just like Vietnam.

The enemy would see this as surrender.

Retreat would again send the clear signal that the reward for violence is capitulation, encouraging more terrorism.

The enemy has said their goal is to use Iraq as a base to launch more operations.

Which is why, while the road ahead will be difficult, the only real exit strategy for Iraq is victory.

The President has also reformed government here to better protect our homeland.

In August of 2001, the FBI became suspicious of a man named Zacarias Moussaoui, who was taking flight lessons in Minnesota.

They tried to expand an investigation … but were stopped by their own rules and regulations.

Now we know that Moussaoui was part of the 9/11 plot, the so-called 20^th hijacker.

President Bush was determined to learn the lesson of Zacarias Moussaoui, to reform a government that was prevented by its own bureaucracy from connecting the dots … so he signed the Patriot Act, created the Department of Homeland Security, and made sure that we intercepted foreign terrorists before they could strike us again.

Today, because of these reforms, and because we are taking the battle to the enemy, our nation is safer.

America has not been attacked in more than four years.

Terrorist-sponsoring despots in Afghanistan and Iraq have been replaced by terrorism-hunting allies.

Libya has ended its efforts to obtain WMD.

Most of Al Queda’s top leadership have been captured or killed.

The A Q Kahn network, which sought to spread WMD, has ended.

Syrian troops have been removed from Lebanon for the first time in nearly 30 years.

And, forced to choose to be with us or against us, Arab nations like the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have cooperated in fighting terrorists.

Which is why it is amazing that some of the other party’s leaders seem to want to take away the tools making us safer.

Do Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean really think that when the NSA is listening in on foreign terrorists planning attacks on America, they need to hang up when those terrorists dial their sleeper cells here in the United States?

Was Harry Reid really that proud when he announced last year, “We killed the Patriot Act”?

And do these Democrat leaders really think we would be safer by cutting and running in Iraq?

Of course, they don’t call it cutting and running.

They call it – quote – “strategic redeployment.”

The Democrats are great at this game.

Before it was “strategic redeployment”, it was “exit strategy.”

And remember how ‘tax increases’ become ‘revenue enhancements’?

Or how ‘government spending’ became ‘investing’?

Would you buy a used car from this party?

They say one thing come election time, but their records show that they mean – and will do – another.

They were for the Iraq war before they were against it.

They were for the Patriot Act, until the far-left came out against it.

They were for the Department of Homeland Security, until the government labor bosses opposed it … and now they say they’re for it again.

I’ve bought used cars … and I know a bait and switch when I see it.

And guess what?

So do the American people.

They can see that “strategic redeployment” is just more of the same old thing: retreat and defeat.

They can see the difference between leaders committed to winning this war, and politicians who will say anything to win the next election.

The War on Terror is not the only area where we face an urgent choice in 2006.

Our economy is strong.

We see it in a growing GDP, low unemployment, and a shrinking deficit.

Just this morning, we saw that our economy created ­243,000 new jobs last month – bringing the total for the last 30 months up to nearly 5 million.

But in a world where it is just as easy to create a job in Lima, Peru as it is in Lima, Ohio, we need to reduce taxation, regulation and litigation to keep jobs here.

We must decrease our dependence on Middle East oil and increase home grown, clean, reliable and safe sources of energy.

America must remain the world’s leader in innovation, so we will double our investment in scientific and basic research and recruit 70,000 more math and science teachers.

And we need a workforce that can take advantage of the jobs we are creating … which means we need the best education system in the world.

While we have a plan to keep America competitive in the future, our critics, like your favorite used car salesmen, ‘have a deal for you.’

They’re trying to convince you that they’re for more homegrown energy – they just don’t want to explore for it, drill for it, produce it, refine it, transport it, or let you use it.

They’re trying to sell you on better health care – but they want to take prescription drugs away from seniors, put government between you and your doctor, and protect trial lawyers’ frivolous lawsuits.

They want you to believe they favor education reform – that is, unless it involves more choice, higher standards and more accountability.

And here’s the biggest whopper of them all: They claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, but their solution to every problem is the same: You pay more taxes.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, House Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi called for higher taxes.

To support our troops in Iraq, Hillary Clinton’s plan: higher taxes.

They argued against cutting taxes when we had a surplus … and still wanted to raise them when the economy went into recession.

When politicians with a record like this promise to hold a budget summit, you’d better watch your wallet.

So Americans will choose in 2006 between a Party that has a pro-growth agenda, and one with a clear record of another kind of growth: growth in your taxes, growth in trial lawyers’ fees, and growth in what you pay at the gas pump.

There is one more reason the 2006 election is so urgent.

One of our nation’s oldest and most important principles is that we vote representatives into office to make our laws … and if we don’t like the laws, we have the power to vote those representatives out again.

We stand for democracy; we stand for the Constitution; and that means we stand against judicial activism.

And in 2006, we will choose whether we will continue to put judges on the federal bench who will interpret the law, not invent it.

We need good judges like John Roberts and Sam Alito, who will preserve our democracy and protect it for us, and for future generations.

The Democrats and their liberal special interest allies worked hard to defeat Sam Alito.

John Kerry was so upset he led a filibuster from Davos, Switzerland.

Democrats, of course, try to assure us that all they’re doing is making sure that justice is served.

But once again, what they say doesn’t match what they do.

Because what they’re really doing is fighting for an activist judiciary that they depend on to carry on their liberal agenda.

After all, if you want to strike ‘Under God’ from the Pledge …

If you want to take private property from one person and give it to another …

If you want to base decisions on the laws of other countries …

If you want to deny parents the right to know if their minor daughter is having an abortion …

… you need activist judges, because we’ve proven you can’t possibly win those issues at the ballot box.

++++++++++++

You know, just this week, we saw stories in the news about how the Democrats have again delayed rolling out an election year agenda – their version of the Contract with America.

Apparently, not only can they not settle on an agenda – they can’t even agree on a slogan.

They are arguing over their current one, “Together, America can do better.”

So how about, in the spirit of bipartisanship, we help with some suggestions.

If they really want the American people to know what they are going to do, then how about “Together, Americans can pay more in taxes”?

Or, “Together, we can retreat from the central front in the War on Terror”?

How about, “Together, we can pay more for gasoline”?

Or “Together, we will let government bureaucrats come between a doctor and her patient”?

The possibilities are endless.

But this is not a joke.

Because together, these are all things that may happen if we don’t work every single day, from now until November, to protect our majorities this year.

Do you want the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to be someone who is so partisan that he once attacked a Republican judicial nominee for not giving enough to charity … at the same time that nominee’s wife was incurring huge hospital bills for terminal cancer?

Do you want the Chairman of the tax-writing committee in the House to be someone who said that tax increases would spur the economy?

Do you want the Speaker of the House, the number three person in the line of Presidential succession, to be someone who said, less than a year after 9/11, “I don’t really consider ourselves at war”?

That is what is at stake this year.

That is the choice we will make in 242 days.

And that is why we cannot rest.

We cannot coast.

We need to get to work right now – not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, but now.

And we must make clear to all of America the differences between our parties.

While they attack people, we attack problems.

While they look at polls, we will lead on principle.

While they will say anything to win the next election, we will do the right things to win our future.

There is a real choice in 2006.

There is an urgent choice.

These elections matter

Not just for our party.

But for our country.

Thank you, and God Bless you all.