Earlier Wednesday, the ranking budget committee member, Paul Ryan (WI), unveiled the GOP's competing budget proposal. While it promises ongoing deficits, too, they are much smaller than the projected Obama deficits and the GOP plan includes tax cuts which would apply to more actual taxpayers, as well. There's a lot to like about the overall proposal.

Here's the problem: the messenger.

I don't like saying this because Ryan is undoubtedly intelligent-- most other House Republicans point to him as the smartest guy in their caucus on fiscal matters-- young, good looking and he makes a sharp presentation. Heck, there was a time not at all long ago that I, personally, thought he'd make for a great Minority Leader, and there was reportedly a small, quiet push behind the scenes in his caucus to see if that could happen.

Unfortunately, since then he's chalked up three big strikes.

Strike #1: Late last year, Ryan voted for the original TARP plan. Some Republicans who voted for it now regret it, while others whom I trust still believe they had to vote for it and that they did the right thing in doing so. Regardless, when the Secretary of the Treasury is painting pictures of how the global financial system will collapse at any moment without it and how--literally, this was his case-- people won't be able to even take money out of their ATMs in the morning, I can see how one might have voted for it. It wasn't my head that particular gun was up against, so I can only imagine what it must have been like to hear Paulson's words and have to cast a vote on the matter. Taken alone, I can give Republicans who voted for TARP a pass. In Ryan's case, however, there's more.

Strike #2: In December, he voted for the automaker bailout, reportedly due to challenging union politics within his district.

Strike #3: Ryan also just voted for the 90% AIG tax.

For me, he sacrifices his TARP pass with those last two votes, which are both utterly inexcusable, hence three strikes and he's out.

My personal feelings aside, and this is what I know rank-and-file Republicans are feeling, is: how on Earth do you get to credibly make a case for limited government with a recent record like that on crucial votes?

You say you believe in free markets. Then why vote for TARP or the auto bailout? You say you stand for the rule of law, then how do you vote for the AIG tax, which most conservative thinkers agree amounts to an unconstitutional bill of attainder?

By saying such things, I'm frustrating some go-along, get-along Republicans around here as well as some who acknowledge the fairness of such questions, yet still feel it does no good "attacking" fellow Republicans. I'd say, think of it in other ways.

How am I supposed to debate a Democrat friend over a beer about our party's commitment to fiscal prudence and small government?

Why would our party leaders expect the donor community to commit to them with conviction, now having almost no idea of the core philophies that truly guide them and what votes they'll cast as a result? If donors are giving today, they're giving because they fear the Obama path, not because of some deep faith in the wisdom of our GOP leaders in Washington.

And how in the world would they expect Independents and Conservative Democrats, the folks they'd need to one day win a Congressional majority or the White House, to tell the difference between GOP policies and those of the Dems?

Some Republicans will think, "why say these things publicly, Hanlon? You're calling them out like this will only provide fodder for the Democrats." You think they don't already understand this? They're a heck of a lot savier about political communication than little old me, I assure you, and they'll keep on dismantling us if we don't put forth leaders with credibility in their philosophies and their voting records.

And consider this: if I'm right that rank-and-file Republicans understand exactly what I'm saying, then no wonder we're deflated. What is the belief system that is going to quide our party in Washington? And where is the next Newt Gingrich who is going to lead our party back to the majority?

In just the last five months, Ryan has proven he is clearly not the guy. If he's the smartest member of the GOP on budget matters, great: leave him behind the curtain to put legislation together but don't trot him out publicly as though he's our philosphical foundation. We're no longer fooled, the Democrats aren't fooled and swing voters won't be fooled.

In short: by so frequently turing your backs on our core principles of limited government, what do all of you Republicans in Congress suggest we, your political supporters out here, do?

We can quite easily rage against the policies of Barack Obama and his dismantling of America. We just wish we had a team of our own we could confidently be for.