Conservatives

Posted on November 28, 2006 '08 Election, Conservatives

newt’s got a few questions

it’s hard to buy the argument, if it is made, that iran and syria’s involvement will actually further the interests of the united states rather than their own interests. let’s not forget that iran is part of the problem. neither country is interested in a stable iraq as the united states would define it. syria isn’t even interested in a stable, independent lebanon. we need to evaluate the ISG’s proposals with that in mind.

newt gingrich has a few tests for the baker/hamilton commission here. this is an excerpt from his human events column along with his comments on each question.

Does the Commission Have a Vision for Success in the Larger War Against the Dictatorships and Fanatics Who Want to Destroy Us?

If Iraq were only a one-step process, the answer might be to leave. But the reality is that Iraq is a single campaign within a much bigger war and within a power struggle over both the evolution of Islam and the rise of dictatorships seeking nuclear and biological weapons to enable them to destroy America and her allies. If the Baker-Hamilton Commission does not take this into account, it is a dangerously misleading report.

Does the Commission Recognize That the Second Campaign in Iraq Has Been a Failure?

This is the hardest thing for Washington-centric bureaucracies to accept. There was a very successful 23-day campaign to drive Saddam out of power. It used America’s strengths, and it worked. The second campaign has been an abject failure. We and our Iraqi allies do not have control of Iraq. We cannot guarantee security. There is not enough economic activity to keep young males employed. If the Baker-Hamilton Commission cannot bring itself to recognize a defeat as a defeat, then it cannot recommend the scale of change that is needed to develop a potentially successful third campaign.

Does the Commission Recognize the Scale of Change We Will Need to Adopt to Be Effective in a World of Enemies Willing to Kill Themselves in Order to Kill Us?

We need fundamental change in our military doctrine, training and structures, our intelligence capabilities and our integration of civilian and military activities. The instruments of American power simply do not work at the speed and detail needed to defeat the kind of enemies we are encountering. The American bureaucracies would rather claim the problem is too hard and leave, because being forced to change this deeply will be very painful and very controversial. Yet we have to learn to win.

Learning to win requires much more than changes in the military. It requires changes in how our intelligence, diplomatic, information and economic institutions work. It requires the development of an integrated approach in which all aspects of American power can be brought to bear to achieve victory. Furthermore, this strategy for victory has to be doubly powerful. For three years, we have failed to build an effective Iraqi government, and we now have a shattered local system with many players using violence in desperate bids to maximize their positions. The plan has to be powerful enough to succeed despite Iraqi weaknesses and not by relying on a clearly uncertain and unstable Iraqi political system.

Does the Commission Describe the Consequences of Defeat in Iraq?

What would the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq look like? Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute recently offered this chilling picture:

“The pullback of U.S. forces to their bases will not reduce the sectarian conflict, which their presence did not generate — it will increase it. Death squads on both sides will become more active. Large-scale ethnic and sectarian cleansing will begin as each side attempts to establish homogeneous enclaves where there are now mixed communities. Atrocities will mount, as they always do in ethnic cleansing operations. Iraqis who have cooperated with the Americans will be targeted by radicals on both sides. Some of them will try to flee with the American units. American troops will watch helplessly as death squads execute women and children. Pictures of this will play constantly on Al Jazeera. Prominent ‘collaborators,’ with whom our soldiers and leaders worked, will be publicly executed. Crowds of refugees could overwhelm not merely Iraq’s neighbors but also the [Forward Operating Bases] themselves. Soldiers will have to hold off fearful, tearful, and dangerous mobs.”

no dead skunks

dick armey:

Moving forward, my advice to Republicans is simple: Don’t go back and check on a dead skunk. The question Republicans now need to answer is: How do we once again convince the public that we are in fact the party many Democrats successfully pretended to be in this election? To do so, Republicans will need to shed their dominant insecurities that the public just won’t understand a positive, national vision that is defined by economic opportunity, limited government and individual responsibility.

We need to remember Ronald Reagan’s legacy and again stand for positive, big ideas that get power and money out of politics and government bureaucracy and back into the hands of individuals. We also need again to demonstrate an ability to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money. If Republicans do these things, they will also restore the public’s faith in our standards of personal conduct. Personal responsibility in public life follows naturally if your goal is good public policy.

Besides the obvious impact on the House and Senate, Tuesday’s elections will no doubt redefine the Republican field going into early presidential primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. It will be up to grassroots activists in those battlegrounds to establish a constituency of expectations that anyone aspiring to be the next president of the United States must satisfy. To voters I say: Demand substance and you will get it. To Republican candidates for office I say: Offer good policy and you will create a winning constituency for lower taxes, less government and more freedom.

republicans didn’t just lose. they surrendered. they were willing to compromise rather than fight for the issues that conservatives considered important. conservatives looked at the republicans’ record and simply said “that’s not good enough for us”. that’s the lesson they need to take from this election. support from democrats and independents is never guaranteed, but losing your base in addition to those two groups is never a great formula for winning elections.

we can do better as republicans. we can learn from this defeat, and maybe even return to the small-government idealistic vision that reagan gave us. that’s the best way to win elections. in the meantime, we need to get our credibility back…one small step at a time.

there’s just one main thing that concerns me about the democrats controlling congress. president bush hasn’t been able to stop congressional republicans on the spending, and he has supported the senate immigration proposal. he is no fiscal conservative and doesn’t see any problems with the minimum wage. what makes anyone think that he will stop the democrats from implementing most of their agenda?

tags: ’06 election, republicans

2 Comments Posted on November 8, 2006 Conservatives, Editorials, Republicans

many unhappy returns

short and sweet recap at this point in the game: democrats win the house, senate still undecided, shepard smith is yelling at somebody for some reason.

this was a defeat for republicans, not for conservatism. the american people didn’t give the democrats a mandate for higher taxes, possible impeachment hearings, more moderate judges, amnesty for illegals, or a policy closer to surrender in the war in iraq. they simply believed that the republicans had not met their expectations, so they decided to give the democrats an opportunity to do a better job governing. i just hope that we won’t be sorry that this choice was made.

philip klein:

We will hear a lot of reasons for why Republicans lost this year. We will hear that they lost because of an unpopular war, an unpopular president, a culture of corruption, a traditional anti-incumbent six-year itch and a dispirited base. But one thing is for sure. Republicans did not lose on a platform of limiting the size and scope of government.

Just as this election wasn’t a defeat for conservatism, it wasn’t a victory for liberalism. Democrats intentionally avoided a publicized “Contract With America”-style platform advancing a progressive agenda in favor of making the campaign a referendum on President Bush. The closest thing they had to a platform, “A New Direction for America,” was not a sweeping ideological document, but a laundry list of initiatives such as making college tuition tax-deductible, raising the minimum wage, and negotiating drug prices. Though a Democratic majority will likely roll back President Bush’s tax cuts, they didn’t advertise that in the “fiscal discipline” section of their platform. (It is a testament to how enamored Republicans became with big government that they enabled Democrats to run as the party of fiscal discipline.)

it is what it is. the democrats now control congress. the republicans need to learn that they don’t ever have a blank check from their base to abuse the trust they were given on issues that we care deeply about. i voted for republicans this time, because i thought that the bigger picture (terrorism, iraq) was more important than our concerns about spending and illegal immigration. (i also wasn’t convinced that the democrats would be an improvement in these areas.)

we can’t go to canada. there are few conservative havens in the world. so we need to stay engaged…now more than ever. we can’t give up fighting for what we believe, because the stakes are too high. keep calling. keep writing and emailing your representatives, no matter what their party affliation is. keep your eyes open.

tags: 2006 election, republicans, conservatives

1 Comment Posted on October 27, 2006 '08 Election, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans

last man standing wins

senator allen has every right to be angry. his reputation has been dragged through the mud by the media. vicious rumors have been spread about him. even though he hasn’t dealt with all the questions very well at times, that still doesn’t take away from the fact that quite a few lines have been crossed in this campaign. it’s gotten very ugly in the virginia senate race. it’s easy to understand the temptation to fire back at the opposition with all the ammo you can find. if we experienced similar treatment, no doubt we would have that same temptation.

that doesn’t excuse what senator allen did by bringing up all those nasty passages from webb’s book. it says more about allen’s desperation than it does about webb’s character. i don’t know jim webb personally, but he seems like a decent guy, although there may be a few areas where we would disagree on policy. that’s a problem for allen, because he can’t easily paint this guy as a loony lefty. senator allen’s own inability to deal with the problems he has faced throughout his campaign have brought him to this point. this shouldn’t have even been a contested race. if allen loses this race, it’s his own fault. the media can be blamed to some degree, but a man who wants to be president needs to know how to handle these obstacles without melting down.

senator allen has failed the test. his latest campaign tactics will have voters asking more questions about him than they will about his opponent. when two candidates sling mud, they both get dirty. george allen may win the battle but lose the war. he may return to the senate, but not without his credibility and integrity being seriously damaged by the way this campaign has ended. i’m not ready to say that senator allen can’t recover from all this and make a serious run at the presidency, but i do think this hurts his chances to be the nominee in ’08.

politics is an ugly game. we all accept that. in this case, this intensely personal slugfest has gone too far. no matter how it turns out, both candidates should be ashamed of their behavior and take no pride in a victory in this race. it’s a hollow victory when you sell out your principles and your integrity to win.

michelle malkin says it better in this post.

tags: ’06 election, republicans, democrats, conservatives

Posted on October 25, 2006 Conservatives, Democracy, Editorials, Republicans

act locally…

…or the democrats will have won.

why should the nutroots have all the fun? there’s still a battle to be fought on the local level with very worthy candidates. i’ve heard the opposing arguments, and they ring hollow. the stakes are too high to act like spoiled children when we don’t get exactly what we want. why did the conservatives turn out for bush in 2004? was it because of his committment to fiscal discipline? was it because we knew that he would take care of the illegal immigration problem once and for all? of course not. so why are we acting as if someone tricked us? the 2004 election was about iraq, the war on terror, and judicial appointments. those were issues we cared about then. aren’t they still important? the jury’s still out on iraq, but in those other two areas bush has been exactly what we expected. if we put democrats in charge, the whole country will suffer negative consequences, not just those republicans who have stepped off of the reservation. we will reverse programs that ARE working to try to gain an elusive ideological purity that will never be possible in any party. just something to consider.

there are some conservatives still in the republican party. some of them are incumbents running for re-election. some of them are challenging democratic incumbents, which is also an uphill battle. if you are lucky enough to have a conservative representing you in congress who is running for re-election, please don’t sit on the sidelines. do what you can to help them win. all campaigns would appreciate whatever time you can spare, even if it’s only an hour or two. not all of us can donate money, but there are other ways to show our support for those who agree with us on the important issues we are facing in this country.

last night i went to a debate between congressman john spratt (who currently represents south carolina’s district 5) and his conservative republican challenger, local businessman ralph norman. it was great fun to watch. it was also hard to decide who won. the important thing in this debate was that it was a debate about ideas. there were a couple pelosi references and bush references, but i believe that the audience got to hear a clear difference between spratt and norman on policy. i doubt any hearts and minds were changed there, however, since virtually everybody had already decided who they would support before this debate started.

for the record, i have done some unpaid campaign work for norman, and my family has as well. i support ralph norman because he’s the right guy for district 5, not because he’s paying for my endorsement. congressman john spratt is a decent fellow, i’m sure of that, but he has opposed just about everything the people in this district support. for that reason, we should let him get on with the business of retiring after this election. 🙂

related:
you can’t always get what you want
Conservatives Will Regret Putting Dems in Power-tony blankley (RCP)
A Blank Check from America?–thomas sowell (RCP)

tags: ’06 election, john spratt, ralph norman

Posted on October 10, 2006 Conservatives, Democrats, Editorials, Republicans

why conservatives won’t abandon the GOP

let me say right up front that i am very disappointed with the performance of the republican majority on important areas like spending and illegal immigration. they also could have used their majority to implement needed reforms in programs like social security. they did not. the most stinging indictment i have of the party in power is that they have lost the political will to make tough decisions and fight for policies that are unpopular. they need to be more conscious of doing what is right than doing what is popular with their friends on the Hill. i don’t approve of the way they handled the foley scandal and i think more follow-up was necessary to ensure that foley did not continue contact with those pages. the story of this current congress is missed opportunities. if they retain control, it won’t be because they deserve it.

we are annoyed with republicans for these and other great reasons. is there a viable alternative for fiscal and social conservatives? i don’t believe that there is. if we stay home, here’s the reality that we will have to deal with. if we actually cast votes for democrats, this is what will happen:

there will be no spending cuts or tax cuts. there is no reason to believe that democrats will hold the line on spending, and you can kiss any tax cuts goodbye. neither party has the discipline to control spending. i don’t know what would change this.
forget any future progress on immigration reform. the republicans haven’t had the political will to do anything substantial on this. we won’t see even token committment to reform under democratic leadership.
social conservatives will be even less pleased with the democrats than they are with the republicans. mark foley or no mark foley, the democrats are still the party that generally supports gay marriage and abortion. there is no excuse for how the foley situation was dealt with, as i said, but the democrats have no reason to expect that social conservatives will now embrace the democratic party.
we will surrender control of our congress to a party that supports weakening the patriot act, giving increased civil rights and protections to people who want to kill us, and a party that opposes spying on terrorists. in this increasingly scary world, is this the party you want in charge?
do we really want the democrats making decisions on judicial appointments? that will be the case if we allow them to regain power.

the republicans haven’t shown that they deserve re-election. the democrats haven’t shown that they deserve power. but conservatives will get much more of what they want by keeping congress in republican hands.

i’m simply going to echo something rush said…if the democrats lose this time, they might as well blow up the party and start over, because the situation has never been more favorable for them.

tags: ’06 election, republicans, democrats, conservatives

1 Comment Posted on September 20, 2006 Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans

the case against losing

david hogberg at the american spectator makes that case. read it all here.

Would Bush and a Democrat-controlled House be an improvement over recent years? Doubtful. Bush is, at best, a squish on fiscal restraint (and that’s being charitable). Last week, House Democrats voted overwhelmingly, 147-45, against a modest earmark reform bill. Sure, Bush might get serious about spending once the Democrats took over, but what would his argument be — that the Democrats were trying to undo all the fiscal restraint he imposed? Indeed, the press would portray him as a cynic, only caring about spending now that the opposition is in power. Since the White House doesn’t seem to have the stomach for such a fight, a more likely scenario is Bush and the House Democrats cutting budget deals resulting in spending increases as bad, if not worse, than what we have now.

There are other areas where the Bush Administration could cut deals with House Democrats that should disturb conservatives. With the Democrats in charge, a Senate-style immigration bill — i.e., amnesty — is far more likely to pass the House. From there it is a quick trip through the Senate to Bush’s signing pen.

Yes, conservatives, myself included, are rightly disgusted with Congressional Republicans’ profligacy. But that disgust is beginning to get through, with Congress recently approving an online database to track spending and the House passing the aforementioned earmark reform. Such efforts will surely stall should Democrats win control of the House. The answer is to keep up the pressure through the grassroots and blogosphere efforts like Porkbusters.A GOP loss of the House in November is just as likely to create more problems for conservatives than it is likely to solve, proving once again that, in politics, there is little virtue in losing.

i think that the grassroots and conservative blogs have made a serious difference in changing the priorities of congressional republicans. (it doesn’t hurt that there is an election coming up either.) will conservatives get everything that we want by keeping republicans in power? the answer is probably not, but we are more likely to get what we want with republicans in charge. there is no reason to believe that democrats will enact strong immigration reform (border security first, no amnesty), make a serious attempt to control spending, or make specific proposals to make it easier to protect our country from terrorist attacks. if those are issues that we care about, the better risk is voting for republicans.

tags: republicans, democrats, ’06 election

2 Comments Posted on September 15, 2006 Conservatives, Republicans

ouch

joe scarborough on the 2006 election:

As a political junkie who wept bitter tears the night Jimmy Carter got elected and shouted with uncontrolled joy when Ronald Reagan whipped his sorry ass four years later, I find myself ambivalent for the first time over a national election. After six years of Republican recklessness at home and abroad, I seriously doubt Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or the aforementioned Bourbon Street hookers could spend this country any deeper into debt than my Republican Party. With any luck, Democrats will launch destructive investigations, a new era of bad feelings will break out, and George W. Bush will stop using his veto pen to fill in Rangers box scores and instead start using it like a conservative president should.

that’s the temptation of many conservatives — to discipline the wayward republicans who have gotten so off-track during their time in power. i won’t disagree that they need some fiscal restraint and that they need to get more serious about border security. we do need to keep the big picture in mind. there’s strong evidence that a divided government is a better bet financially. we have more serious problems to face than spending, and we need to ask ourselves which party has a better plan to deal with those problems.

get out and vote for the party of your choice based on the information you have. we will deal with the consequences after november. it’s not over yet.

tags: ’06 election, joe scarborough

1 Comment Posted on September 12, 2006 Conservatives, Democracy, Republicans

what he said

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests, ” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

–former senator and presidential candidate Barry Goldwater

that’s where today’s conservatives have gotten off-message. the majority of the elected conservatives only pay lip service to smaller government and fiscal responsibility. it’s fortunate for them that we haven’t held them accountable for those two failings because of our emphasis on national security. while i think that we have our priorities straight when we put national security above every other area, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that conservative Republicans have been careless with the responsibility we gave them. they should hear that message from us.

tags: barry goldwater, conservatives, government

5 Comments Posted on September 11, 2006 '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

advantage: newt

i don’t support gingrich for the republican nomination. i do support his candidacy because i think that he will sharpen up the other candidates and force them to make compelling, thoughtful, and well-thought out arguments on the issues of the day. newt is a smart guy. he may not be as smart as he thinks he is. that doesn’t mean that he can’t contribute positively to the race for the ’08 republican nomination. he has good ideas that the next republican nominee would be wise to adopt.

we are quite familiar with the weaknesses of newt gingrich. his fierce partisanship. his hard-headedness. his love of hearing himself speak. the inability to successfully complete the republican revolution of small government, more accountability, and so forth. it certainly doesn’t help him that he is a very polarizing figure, much like hillary clinton, and could find it difficult to find that groundswell of support that he would need to make a successful run to the republican nomination. that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t make the attempt.

understanding of foreign policy should be an important factor when choosing the next presidential nominee, especially on the republican side. we can no longer write this off as peripheral to other issues like jobs, healthcare, and the economy, especially not in light of recent events. we need to know where our potential nominees stand on the conflict between israel and hezbollah, and their suggestions on resolution. of course, there is the conventional wisdom that suggests that there will never be mid-east peace, no matter how many UN resolutions there are and no matter how much territory israel is willing to give up. there sure is a compelling case for that POV, but a good start to peace would be completely wiping out Hezbollah. there is no way to negotiate with countries or terrorists whose goal is to wipe your country off of the face of the earthas hezbollah and iran have said about israel.

anyway…back to newt. fox news loves newt. he’s a great interview. he also understands the world we live in today, and the threat we face with terrorism. his history background gives him a unique perspective on world events, and it also gives him an edge when discussing foreign policy that none of the other potential nominees can demonstrate. (*maybe mccain and his vietnam service might be the exception to this*) mccain, allen, and romney have said all the right things, but it’s gingrich who has been controlling the debate from day one. this is not only true about the current situation in israel, but on just about every political topic generating buzz in the media world.

the PR blitz is working in newt’s favor. it might even make people forget the way his political career ended the first time. we want someone who can show leadership. we want someone who understands what’s going on with this country and the rest of the world. the most appealing thing about newt is that he is willing to put himself out there and say what needs to be said, and suggest alternatives and a slight course correction from the bush administration. we need someone who is willing to fight for everything he believes in…and that’s where he differs from president bush.

newt also has some great ideas about domestic policy and shrinking government that should be adopted by any serious republican nominee. i love his ideas and absolutely encourage him to run for president. that said, i don’t see how he can win the nomination or the presidency. but what do i know? 🙂

(disclaimer: in case you were wondering, no…i don’t work for the newt campaign right now, but i would definitely consider it if he officially announced his candidacy.)

tags: newt gingrich, ’08 election

unfiltered