L&P: What years were you in D.C.?
BREHM: I was there from the beginning of 2003 until 2005, when I went to law school.
L&P: How did you like it?
BREHM: For whatever reason, the press office didn’t have an intern when I started, and I said we needed some help.
L&P: How long were you out in D.C.?
BREHM: Two years. I started off as a legislative correspondent, just writing mail, and my plan was to be out there …
L&P: You weren’t an attorney at that time?
BREHM: No, I had just graduated from college and I had this job on this rinky-dink staff, so I thought it would be fun to live in D.C. and work for him for a year, and then I got moved over to the press shop, and that was really fun and exciting, so I said I’d stay one year, but then after two years I didn’t want to be a 34-year-old first-year associate.
L&P: Did you love D.C.?
BREHM: I loved it. My first job out there was when I was a page for Congressman Jim Ramstad, my junior year in college. It was just great. I loved the work, and I kind of caught the bug.
L&P: Let’s start with the Churchill Society. Why it was started, who’s behind it, and where is it going to go?
BREHM: The idea was I really felt that people are hungry for a more substance-based forum where people can come and discuss conservative ideas and do it in a more respectful way and substantive way. So rather than [more] of the Glenn Beck conservatism that people are growing tired of, there’s a hunger for more of the Bill Buckley type of conservatism, where our strength comes from our ideas. So let’s have a place where people can get together, have fun, and also talk about issues.
While there are a lot of opportunities for people to get involved in the partisan process, there aren’t as many opportunities for people just to come and listen and have a conversation. That’s what we hope to provide. I’d like to have a forum on global warming, for instance, from a conservative perspective, not just attacking the other side. Same with health care. Conservatives have a lot of good ideas and a lot of attractive principles, and sometimes they get overshadowed by the screaming that goes on.
My goal is to introduce people to free-market and conservative ideas. I think they’re pretty appealing, and hopefully from that, some people will adopt that as their own philosophy. I think the best way to do that is to make people feel welcome.
L&P: How is this going to differ from what Mitch Pearlstein does at the Center of the American Experiment?
BREHM: I know Mitch, and I worked at the Center of the American Experiment my first year of college. [It’s] a real serious, substantial think tank, and we’re not selling ourselves as a think tank necessarily, but just an organization that provides a forum — one, just to get together and have fun, for conservatives to network a little bit, and two, to have a speaker come in. We’re not planning on writing anything necessarily and doing the substantial things he does. It’s more for people to come hear something, to actually learn something. That’s what we’d really like it to be, not just let’s hear how bad the other side is, but let’s actually learn what the conservative side of an issue is in a respectful way.
I think one of the things that inspired me was I have a lot of Democratic friends — I’m really passionate about politics, but I don’t take it personally. I think that’s important, and I think a lot of that gets lost nowadays.
L&P: When is the next Churchill meeting? How often do you meet?
BREHM: We haven’t planned one yet. My guess is we’ll probably have one in December. We see this as happening quarterly, and we’ve really had a lot of good feedback. Now we’ve added over 500 people on our mailing list. I don’t want to overdo it, plan too many events, but probably in December.
L&P: Years ago, Buck Humphrey was young and he thought that there was too much serious stuff going on, so he started a thing were you’d talk issues over a beer. Is this something like that? Is the social element also important?
BREHM: I think so. In some ways, I suppose, our namesake comes to mind. Winston Churchill liked to have fun, he had a great sense of humor. I think part of it, too, is to have fun, to joke around, have a little more lighthearted discussion. But I do hope that it remains a substantive organization that people will want to come and actually learn something. I think the governor did a good job of doing that on our first meeting. But yes, having fun is part of it.
L&P: Around our office, we’ve been bewailing the fact that there is no Firing Line today. How we could use the Firing Line in this day and age, with people really putting out ideas and being relatively respectful.
BREHM: Right, and I think conservative ideas are strongest when they aren’t varnished with screaming. I went to Clairmont McKenna College, where I was a government and political philosophy major. I like to say that I entered as a Republican my freshman year, I was active, and I left a conservative Republican, and I was still as partisan as I always have been. But I had a good education in terms of studying history, political philosophy, and reading Churchill and Lincoln, and getting a better understanding of those ideas. And then having good ammunition to make arguments. A Firing Line really would have been great.
L&P: You’re a Republican, but you’re also a lawyer. What do you think of this drive to bring tort reform to health care? Are you for that?
I very much am.
L&P: What kind of lawyer are you?
BREHM: I’m a corporate lawyer. I don’t fancy myself an expert on the issue, but I do think there’s need for tort reform for sure.
L&P: Did you see our last issue? We had a piece from Chuck Slocum. He did a letter to Tony Sutton, a former party chair to the new party chair. I’d love to get your comments on what seems to be the discussion within the Republican Party these days between social conservatives and fiscal moderates. What’s your sense on how that debate is shaping up, and where would you like to see that go?
BREHM: Well, I was thrilled to see Tony [Sutton] elected party chairman. He’s a good friend, and I think he’s incredibly bright. I really don’t think the two have to be mutually exclusive, in a sense that — again, I consider myself a conservative, and I’ve always been one, and I don’t think the Republican Party needs to retreat from any of the principles it has stood for for so long to attract new voters. But I do think we need to be careful about how we communicate that. I think that we have been a party that has done a very good job of talking to our base, but if you look at the percentage of Minnesotans, for example, who consider themselves conservative, it’s more than the number that fancy themselves liberal, but it’s also not a majority. There’s another group we need to be talking to. One of the reasons I’m such a big fan of Tim Pawlenty is I think he does a good job of that. Ronald Reagan could do that. To be able to take conservative ideas and to talk about them in a way that even people that disagree with the speaker will at least understand where they’re coming from and will respect them. I think when you get judgmental, and harsh and nasty — people that agree with you may not have a problem with that — but it gets really unattractive to those that don’t share those views. I really don’t think the Republican Party needs to shift to the middle in any way, but I think they can do a better job of talking in the middle.
L&P: Which politicians in the party do you think are doing a good job of that?
BREHM: Gov. Pawlenty, obviously, I think does a great job. I think Newt Gingrich does a fantastic job of presenting issues — if you listen to him speak, he doesn’t just articulate the same talking points, he knows his stuff and actually has a lot of great ideas. So rather than just complain about the Democrats’ health care proposals, he’ll say, well, here’s what we should do. I think it’s that productive message that people love, and people that disagree with you are going to say, well, here’s someone who knows what they’re talking about and is trying to find a solution and has something interesting to say. I thought my old boss Norm Coleman did a good job of that. He’s able to reach out to people who probably aren’t going to agree with him on everything. There are some, like the CNN commentator Glenn Beck, who do conservatism a disservice by being hysterical all the time. I’m sure a lot of people are big fans of his, and it can be entertaining television, but we need to remember that this is serious stuff and we need to be careful about how we articulate things and try not to turn people off. So, when it comes to substance, I don’t think we need to make a change, but as far as communication goes, we need to do a better job. And I really think we are making progress in that regard already.
L&P: This is from The Nation: They say there’s undeniably a crisis of leadership, faith and constituency among conservatives at this point in history. Do you think that’s true?
BREHM: No. Is there a crisis? No, I don’t think that’s the case at all. The first question I’d ask is do I think that conservative ideas and principles are losing their appeal to the American people? And polling certainly shows that’s not the case. So I think our ideas and principles are as strong as they always have been, and they always will be. 2006 and 2008 were rough years for us. I think Republicans get that and are making changes. I think this year is going to be good for us. I like the kind of candidates we’re offering up, I like the leadership changes we’re making, getting people like Tony Sutton in office, and hopefully we’ll pick a good presidential candidate in 2011.
L&P: Assuming that you’re going to name Gov. Pawlenty, who besides him do you see as a potentially good candidate for president?
BREHM: Obviously my first choice would be Pawlenty. I like Mitt Romney a lot too. I think the key thing — and this is a little off-center — the key thing as far as Republican candidates go and certainly our presidential candidates, the Republican Party needs to get back into talking about free markets again. You do now, but for a while you heard a lot of big-government type stuff coming from Republicans, and you didn’t hear as much about the power of the free market and its ability to make life better for everybody. I really think it’s important that our candidates be able to speak like that. And certainly Mitt Romney knows how, and the governor does that well too.
L&P: Did you read the New York Times today?
BREHM: Did I read the New York Times today? I read the Wall Street Journal every day (laughs).
L&P: I read the Wall Street Journal also. I took this from the Times today. Republican strategist Bruce Bartlett says he he thinks the Republican Party doesn’t any longer have a credible economic policy. Here’s what he says: “The best parts of supply-side economics have been completely integrated into the mainstream, and what remains is a caricature. There is no problem that more and bigger tax cuts can’t solve.” Do you think that’s true?
BREHM: No, I don’t. One, I think the record speaks for itself. Up until 2008, this country had unprecedented economic growth. And I think that’s due in large part to the Reagan Republican leadership. And the idea that tax cuts — I mean, if you look at the statement, it hasn’t worked. One of my favorite points that defenders of it say is that it just hasn’t been spent yet. If injecting money into the economy was the objective, why not just give a payroll tax to everyone, and it would have been spent in weeks. So, I think the idea that conservative economic ideology, and until I’m disproven, I don’t see how it’s the cause of this current recession at all. Again, I think we need to look back — and it will be much smarter people than you or I who will determine what did or didn’t cause this — because when I look at it, in terms of the health care problem, for instance, what the biggest problem with that I see is that your health care coverage is connected to your employment. That’s a real problem. I get that, and I think Republicans agree that that needs to change. What’s the cause of that? It’s government. It’s an artificial subsidy that has been created by that tax benefit.
With this economic turn, you basically had a housing crisis that was caused in large part by banks giving mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them. The government incentivizes that. So I really, really don’t. And again, I’m not an economist, but I think the record speaks for itself that tax cuts do work. What you can’t do is what the Bush administration did, and that is to have tax cuts and no spending cuts. You can’t have perpetual deficit spending. That’s totally irresponsible. But I do think that a smaller, leaner government and tax cuts are good — the government has to be funded somehow. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any, but I’m saying that individual spending is a lot more efficient than government spending, and it should be kept at a minimum. And we’ll see, the Democrats are completely in control of Washington right now — you have a pretty liberal president, a very liberal speaker of the House, a liberal Senate, and I think that their elections have consequences and they’re enacting their agenda as they have every right to do. But they’re trying the ____?____ style of economics and we’re going to see if it’s working so far. I really don’t think that it is. Again, I believe very strongly in free-market principles. I think industry supports them. Republicans are getting back to being the party of fiscal restraint, and that’s important. You can’t have tax cuts and not cut spending.
L&P: In the end, no one seemed to like the Bush administration. What happened that a conservative Congress allowed itself to be so compliant to the president? Was it overpoliticized? And how can we avoid that in the future?
BREHM: Well, I wouldn’t say that I dislike the Bush administration as a whole. I think the Bush administration did a lot of very good things — I have a picture up there with my family, he gave my dad an award. My dad was appointed the chairman of the United States African development foundation and has done a lot of work in Africa for the poor there. He has written a lot of books and travels there all the time. That was in December ’08. But back to your question. I think the Bush administration went right in a lot of ways, especially when it came to foreign policy. I felt very safe with president Bush in the White House, there’s no question about that. That’s the president’s most important job. I think where they went wrong is they wanted to play politics on the Democrats’ field, and that means bragging about spending increases and increasing the Department of Education. The problem with playing that game is it might work in the short term, but in the long term, you’re going to get outbid. So you communicate using their language — I think Republicans thought they were being clever, you know, let’s play this the way they do it and let’s brag about how big we’re making federal programs and equating success with increases in funding. I think that worked for a while, but in the end I think it ended up creating a lot of — it was financially irresponsible, first of all. And secondly, it’s not who we are. And it’s not what we offer. I think that message of fiscal restraint and small government appeals to the average voter. I’m not sure why we got away from that, and with that respect I’m disappointed with the administration and the congressional Republicans. There’s been so much analysis of that, and I think Republicans got it and are back to where it should be. I think the Republican Party is absolutely headed in the right direction now.
L&P: Is there a post-Bush foreign Republican policy? Do the Republicans have a platform or is it just the same as it was under Bush?
BREHM: Well, I think we’re seeing it in Afghanistan. I think in terms of whether or not we’re going to have a troop increase there, the Republicans are in favor of winning the war and listening to what the generals have to say. The Obama administration seems to want to go the other way. I don’t want to take the liberty of trying to define what the Republican party necessarily stands for, but I think there is a contrast in terms of this president likes to apologize for America a lot abroad, and I think our party takes great issue with that. We’re not a perfect country, but I don’t think the president has anything to apologize for. And I think when it comes to dealing with terrorism and dealing with dictators, I think Republicans and certainly President Bush understood that to some extent you can’t deal with fanatics. Unfortunately, all they respond to is force. And so you have Iran, who has no need for peaceful nuclear operations whatsoever. I mean, just on its face it’s ridiculous that they’re trying to build a nuclear activator and they don’t need it. We need nuclear reactors. They certainly don’t. Why would they be doing that? This administration feels that he can deal with leaders there, and he can charm them, and I don’t think that’s possible. I don’t think Republicans are saying go to war at all. No one wants that. But I think there’s a toughness that’s lacking that Republicans would like to see more of. That’s not to say that the diplomacy isn’t worth it. I think to some extent it’s very important not to be arrogant in our foreign policy. We need allies, but you can’t sacrifice your principles to court allies.
L&P: D.J. Tice had a column recently where he said, “When the liberals turn down the idea of school vouchers, all they’re really doing is protecting their constituency against government invasion. And conversely, when conservatives turn down the public option with health care, they’re doing the same thing for their constituency, which is insurance companies.” Does that make sense to you?
BREHM: No. I think when government competes with the private sector, it wins. I think we want school vouchers to counteract a government monopoly. The public option plan — again, I’m not an expert — my problem with the public option is this: I think it will ultimately lead to government health care, which sounds great, but it just doesn’t work. Again, I’m a big fan of just looking at the facts, and if you look at where it’s been tried, it’s a disaster. It doesn’t work in Canada, it doesn’t work in England, no one wants that system. So, when you say a public option, how I understand it is government is going to be reducing the cost of health care, and that’s something that absolutely needs to happen. I’m the biggest proponent of health care reform you’ll meet. The current system is totally broken, it’s unaffordable. And it’s dangerous, because if you lose your job, you lose your health care. The question is how are you going to reduce cost. I think everyone seems to agree that the government, from what I can understand, is going to reduce cost by just setting prices like it does with Medicare. The problem with that is if the government sets it below price, then the private sector has to somehow pick up the tab for that subsidy, which I understand is what’s currently happening. So the more people that get on the public option plan, the more expensive the private plans are going to get to the point where it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense not to be on the public option plan, and I think you’re going to have people in droves going over there. So I think the reality of the government competing with the private sector doesn’t work. The government doesn’t have a bottom line. It doesn’t lose clients very often. So I could sit here and talk to you about a lot of good ideas I think there are in terms of health care reform …
L&P: There’s a perception among some people that the Republicans have run out of ideas and have just become a party of “No.”
BREHM: First of all, Republicans are just saying no right now because that’s all we can do. We don’t control the House and Congress. We don’t control the White House. So we can’t set the agenda. There are lots of good Republican ideas going around that don’t get reported all that often. How I see the health care debate is this: I think there are two problems. One is people not being able to afford health insurance and don’t have it as a result. Well, let’s look at what that number really is. And again, my numbers aren’t going to be totally accurate here. A lot of people like to say there’s 40 million or whatever. I think 8 million of that number are illegal immigrants who the president has said aren’t going to be covered under that plan. Another 10 million or so are children who could be covered under ________ that has already passed. Or they have other government programs. So basically it comes down to a 5-or-6-million-people problem, which, if you just want to get them insured, doesn’t require a trillion-dollar answer. Just subsidizing that coverage wouldn’t be that expensive. There are also a lot of people that are uninsured that could afford it and just choose not to. There’s not a whole lot you can do about that. The other problem that I feel and that we all feel is that health costs are way outpacing inflation. And also, if you lose your job, you’re not covered. Those are two huge problems for Republicans and for Democrats. This current system is headed for disaster.
So, let’s talk about how we can do that. One of the problems is — again, this kind of comes back to my free-market point — there are no free-market principles operating in the health care industry. So when I go to the doctor’s office and pay my $20 copay, I want as many tests as possible. Give me as much as I can get because I’ve already paid my copay. I don’t care how much things cost. I don’t even know how much my doctor is charging my insurance company — there could be just as good but cheaper options down the street. So there’s not competition or incentive for me to look for value in terms of the services I’m getting. I think that’s a major problem. On the flip side, you have doctors who are paid in large part by procedures. So you have the two parties operating a transaction who want the cost to go up as high as they possibly can. And they will. You have to rearrange the incentives, I think. That’s the starting point. That’s why I think high-deductible plans could really be beneficial in terms of getting people paying attention, getting people to shop around and drive health care costs. Let’s look at Lasik surgery, for example — that’s not covered by anybody, and I see ads all the time. It’s a really safe procedure, and you can go to the mall and get it for, like, $120. The cost of that procedure has gone down, down, down. The technology has gotten better, better, better. I can’t help but think that part of that is because you have such a competitive market for that service. When people are facing crisis with their health — they’re facing cancer or a brain tumor — that’s when you don’t want cost to matter, and you shouldn’t. You should have health care readily available. But for some of these more standard procedures, I think it would be a good thing for people to shop around. Can you imagine if your car insurance covered everything — if it covered oil changes and checkups? You’d have no incentive to look around; you’d take it to the most convenient place. I think that’s a big part of it. I think tort reform is a big part of it. When people are injured by malpractice, they should be compensated. And when a doctor does wrong, he or she should probably lose their license, but you don’t necessarily need to create a whole industry in doing that. But I think the other problem, too, is in terms of how you get your insurance policy. So again, I think most of us have no idea how much our insurance policy costs, what kinds of benefit our employers are providing. We’re not really shopping around. So I think there are a lot of good reforms. I thought John McCain had a pretty good health plan, actually, in the campaign. I thought his health plan made a lot of sense. Giving everybody the tax benefit of buying health insurance versus just your employer. So I think there are a lot of good ideas out there. I hear Republicans talk a lot about them. But I think the reality is that we’re not in power right now. And the Democratic Party that’s setting the agenda has a right to set the agenda.
L&P: I don’t know why the Republicans in Congress are not giving those ideas.
BREHM: I don’t want to sound too partisan, but I do feel that we’re being muffled out by the leadership in Washington, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s the president that sets the agenda. There are Republican ideas in this legislation. I think one of the reasons why we’re so opposed to it is there just isn’t much compromise here. I don’t even fault the president, even though he talked a lot about working with Republicans. This is one area where he just simply hasn’t. So there’s just not a whole lot in here that we like. There hasn’t been much compromise. I think he feels that he has powerful majorities in Congress, and he’s right. He wants to get his own way, and I don’t necessarily fault him for that. I do think we’re at the table. I do think we have alternatives to this. There couldn’t be a bigger contrast in terms of the way Republicans and Democrats feel on this issue. We’re very far apart, unfortunately. But I do think there are Republicans talking about this a lot. But we don’t have the bully pulpit of the White House — it’s a very helpful tool.
L&P: Are you comfortable with Michele Bachmann articulating GOP positions?
BREHM: Um, yes. Yes, I am. I think she speaks — I was just at a lunch with her yesterday — I think that she does a very good job of talking about the free market. She wrote an op-ed that I thought was very excellent in the Star Tribune about six months ago talking about some of the failures of the economic policies that were tried during the Depression. So I think she’s very smart and very capable. There are some quotes that she has that I would disagree with. I think she’s a very nice lady. She’s won handily in her district, so they seem to feel that she represents them well. I think that more than not she articulates conservative principles just fine, but it’s quite possible to get misquoted also. Some of the statements that have been attributed to her, I couldn’t …
L&P: George W. Bush was the best recruiting tool liberals ever had. How is Obama’s recruiting tool for conservatives?
BREHM: I think he’s a good recruiting tool because he’s the product of losing elections. This is a White House with a very liberal agenda, and I’m not just calling names. And he ran as a fairly liberal candidate. And I’m not here to say that he doesn’t have a right to try to get done what he believes in, but I think that Republicans who maybe sat back in 2008, who were disenfranchised by whatever, are now saying hey, wait a second, this is what happens when we sit back. Or, this is what happens when moderates vote Democrat. It’s very bad stuff for people like me who believe in conservative ideas. So I don’t think Barack Obama is a bad person. He seems like a very decent man and a very good father and husband. I admire his intelligence and work ethic and his career. But I think that he’s a liberal guy and is a liberal president, and in that respect, I think he’s completely taking the country in the wrong direction. I think Republicans feel that way too. So I think we’re fired up. We want to stop this. So, in that sense, I’m sure he’s a fine recruiting tool.
L&P: Is the deficit going to be the big message? It seems like a political openingyou’re your party for the midterms. Looking into next year — have you looked at the map? I’ve been reading some things, and it looks like there could be some pickups.
BREHM: Yeah, I saw some things from Stewart Rothenberg recently that showed that things look very good in Virginia in the governor’s race.
L&P: Is the main, overriding message going to be that spending’s out of control?
BREHM: That will be one issue, there’s just no question about it. The problem is that — I had a letter to the editor of the Star Tribune about this back in February — Barack Obama, every time he’s criticized about deficit spending, he likes to respond, well, you Republicans voted for some pretty irresponsible budgets too. My answer to that is, well, first of all, you may think that, but you’re the president now, so you can’t make reactionary policy like that. Secondly, I think we’ve all learned our lesson, and the Republican party now has a very good record — had before, has now a very good record when it comes to fiscal discipline. People are really concerned about it. The deficit comes out to $34,000 a person. I think Cash for Clunkers was paid for with a check that hasn’t been cashed yet. And I think all this deficit spending has to be paid for one way or another by people like me at some point. It can’t continue, and the other danger of it is is that if you have an economy fueling on deficit spending, at some point, the faucet could be turned off. At some point, China could say, we’re done. And you think the economy’s hitting the brakes now, wait till that happens. The American people are responsible people and, I believe, living within their means. We’re all trying to do that now the best we can, and I think they feel that government should too. I’m certainly concerned about it. I know a lot of people are concerned about it. There are analysts that say that’s not an issue. I think that’s boloney. I think your average voter cares a lot about it.
L&P: Any predictions for the midterms?
BREHM: I think we’re for sure going to pick up some seats in Congress. I don’t know if we’re going to win the House. I’m not a smart enough political scientist to know that, but I think the polling looks good in terms of Democrats’ polling [looking] bad. Our incumbents look very strong — Erik Paulsen, Michele Bachmann, John Kline are all very stable. I predict big pickups in 2010. I think, again, it comes down to substance. Everyone liked the appeal of Barack Obama’s campaign. It was fun. It was exciting. It was historic. But now’s the time to do the real business. And I think when it comes to that, I think the American people who are moderate to right people are troubled by it.
L&P: Are you going to run for office?
BREHM: Am I? I have no plans to right now. I’m just trying to make a legal career. I think for those of us that care about politics and care about these big questions think everybody should. I think you have to be open to that at some point. But I’m not looking at any one particular race to get in. But I like politics, I like public service. I like issues, I like debate. I certainly wouldn’t rule it out, but I don’t have any plans to do that now.
L&P: Is there a book brewing in that brain?
BREHM: A book? No. I’ve gotta read more of ’em, though.
L&P: You’re awfully good on Almanac. How often do you do it?
ABI maybe do it once a month. There’s no particular pattern. They just call me up if they need people. But I really enjoy that program. I like Cathy and Eric a lot. I think they’re good reporters and they’re nice to me. Again, I like doing that show because it’s fun to toss around issues and it’s fun to be on the couch and to go at it but then to shake hands. But there are some Democrats that do that and there are some that don’t.
L&P: Quick question about possible vice president Pawlenty, but also look back — I think it was a Friday when it went to Palin. Did you think it was his?
BREHM: I did.
L&P: I think most people did.
BREHM: I was disappointed by the pick. I think he’s a superb pick in every way. I think he’s articulate. I think he has a good record. He’s a conservative. He’s an appealing guy. He has a good sense of humor. I thought, he’s got a great life story.
L&P: Was Sarah Palin a real surprise even to insiders like yourself?
BREHM: Oh, yeah. It came as a big surprise to me. I was very disappointed. Pawlenty would have been my first choice. Romney, my second. I think McCain had enough candidates to pick from amongst those two. So I didn’t understand the logic of that choice. I think if you look at the attack that was doing the best against Obama the summer of 2008, it was the inexperienced attack. Which was, this guy’s not ready, we don’t know who he is, we don’t know what he stands for. And then by picking someone who wasn’t qualified, who had served less than two years as governor, you kind of …
I’m not thrilled with the way the media likes to treat Sarah Palin. I think that she’s treated extremely harshly. I’m not sure why they like to go after her personally or her family. I think that’s mean-spirited. I think there’s too much of that. But she wouldn’t have been my pick.
L&P: It was such an interesting moment on the national stage. How often in national politics is an actual curveball thrown? I was really curious what that must have felt like, because he had been fully vetted. I think he kind of expected it would be his call. Are you ready to suit up if he calls you to serve on his campaign? It’s really a two-year process. It’s not that far away.
BREHM: Oh, I’d support him for sure if he runs.
L&P: But would you work for him?
BREHM: Oh, I like my job here.
L&P: Do you have a family?
BREHM: I don’t have a family yet. Who knows. I wouldn’t rule it out. I love him. But I like being a lawyer. He seems to have a lot of good political people on his team, so I don’t know if he needs another hack.
L&P: It seems as if there’s a path open.
BREHM: I think first of all, it might have been good that he wasn’t picked. I mean, who knows? If McCain had picked him and he had done good in the debates and he had created a following, that might have been helpful. But it was a fairly lackluster campaign. I think John McCain — who I’m a fan of — made some mistakes tactically, shutting down the campaign, etc. As we look back, it’s not a model campaign, that’s for sure. Again, I think it comes back to he knows how to talk in free-market terms, he’s got a good sense of humor, he’s very smart, and I think he really has a good record as governor of the state. And he’s a conservative but knows how to appeal to non-conservatives in the best kind of way and doesn’t give in on issues and ideas, but also speaks in a way that makes him likeable and makes him compassionate and makes people at least understand where he’s coming from. I think there’s an opening for sure, so we’ll see.
L&P: Is there anything else we should know about the Churchill Society? This is a brand-new thing, right?
BREHM: It’s a brand-new thing. I was really humbled by the turnout and the really good feedback. I truly don’t think it has anything to do with me. I think it had a lot to do with having the governor there. He’s an appealing guy and people wanted to hear what he had to say.
L&P: Who does the organizing? Is that you?
BREHM: I did. So many people came up to me and said, there’s nothing like this. My Democratic friends were there and were welcome. Political agnostics were there just curious to hear this guy. I think the thing is everyone is welcome. We’re going to have a conservative speaker who is going to present a conservative viewpoint — I’m not going to compromise on that. But you do it in a way that’s fun, that’s interesting, and that’s welcoming. I think if you want to listen to a bunch of political shouting, you can turn on cable TV any night of the week — there’s lots of that. We also want people to get involved in campaigns and be part of the partisan process — I am, and I’m proud of it. I think it’s important.
L&P: How can they do it? If somebody’s reading this and they say, I want to be part of that?
BREHM: We have lots of people who are involved in politics, so if people want to get involved, we can do that. But again, our mission is to say, come and have fun, and we want to make converts. My goal is to introduce some people to free-market and conservative ideas. I think they’re pretty appealing, and hopefully from that, some people will adopt that as their own philosophy. I think the best way to do that is to make people feel welcome.
L&P: Is there an e-mail address?
BREHM: winstonchurchillsociety@gmail.com
L&P: Is Marty Seifert going to be the next governor?
BREHM: I like Marty. I’ve talked to him a couple times. I think this governor’s race is very good, because who says you have to have a favorite all the time? I think what you’re going to have — these guys are working very hard. Marty called me, and if he’s calling me, that means he’s calling everybody. The guy’s working like crazy, and I think that’s great. I think you’re going to have a contest, and some of them will stumble, some of them are going to do better than we thought. I’m undecided. I’m a delegate. I haven’t made my decision yet. I think it’s fine to have vote battles. Let the best man or woman win.
Back to Articles
