May 15 03:27 Rebuilding From the State Up
May 15 10:17 Cowards Turn Tail
May 15 13:11 I Told You So
May 15 20:14 Is This Why Democrats Boycotted FNC Debates?
May 16 02:03 ***GREAT NEWS ALERT***GREAT NEWS ALERT***
May 16 03:40 Hugo's Got Some Explaining to Do
May 16 08:24 Back Door Amnesty
May 16 18:34 White House Targeted Jimmy Carter
Prior Months:
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Prior Years:
2006
2007
Rebuilding From the State Up
I've been pondering this after reading about the NRCC lost 3 straight special elections. The answer is now clear. It's time to stop pussyfooting around. It's time to start rebuilding. I'm not worrying about Minnesota House seats. John Kline and Michele Bachmann will be fine. Erik Paulsen should keep MN-3 in GOP hands. What I'm worrying about is having leaders who don't give a damn about Reagan's principles. It's been fashionable this year to dismiss Reagan. Ed Rollins started it. Mich Daniels told us to get over Reagan.
The day the Republican Party forgets about what Ronald Reagan stood for is the day that the Republican Party becomes Liberal Lite.
Some think
it's already there. I'm not sure I'd disagree, though I'm not
that
fatalistic.
The good news for Minnesotans is that we're building a strong farm team here. There are other glimmers of hope elsewhere, too. Jeb Hensarling, Mike Pence, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn are helping rebuild the party. What we need is someone with a Reganite vision of conservatism. That person must have a confidence that liberty and prosperity are the cornerstones of Reagan's conservatism. That person must be an optimist. That person must be a leader with well-thought through convictions.
It's always been my contention that people didn't understand Reagan's greatness. Tip O'Neill and others thought of him as an "amiable dunce." Far from it.
We don't need another Reagan. We just need a true conservative leader. We need someone who doesn't pick RINOs when he can have a conservative.
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:29 AM
Comment 1 by
Freealonzo at 15-May-08 08:17 AM
I think conservatives like to focus on the "idea" of Ronald Reagan rather than the actual President.
Would Reagan be relegated to a RINO when in 1982-83 he raised taxes across the board? How about when he was an eyelash away from giving away our entire nuclear capability to the Soviets. Or his absolute lack of action on abortion?
Comment 2 by
Gary Gross at 15-May-08 10:22 AM
It's apparent that Alonzo is a revisionist historian. Ronald Reagan cut taxes by 25 percent in 1981-83. Now Alonzo is saying that Reagan raised them. Shame on him for trying his hand at revisionist history.
Comment 3 by
J. Ewing at 15-May-08 10:26 AM
We don't need Reagan. We don't even need a strong conservative "leader" of the Party. All we need is for enough people to get together and describe conservative solutions to the problems of the day, in clear-cut, actionable terms, and then "sell" that agenda to the public and the candidates alike. I don't think our problem is that our candidates, by and large, are not conservative. I think it's that we keep asking each of them to re-invent the wheel, every election, and then sell it single-handedly to a majority who already believe it, if they knew what it was.
Comment 4 by
Gary Gross at 15-May-08 11:01 AM
I don't think our problem is that our candidates, by and large, are not conservative.
That's where we disagree. There's too many RINOs in Washington. I think we're fine in St. Paul in terms of the legislators in St. Paul being solid conservatives.
Another bone I have to pick with national Republicans is that they don't fight for the things they believe. One Washington Port or NYTimes article & they turn tail. Pathetic.
Comment 5 by
Freealonzo at 15-May-08 12:24 PM
You can call it revisionist history, I'll call it facts:
In 1982 alone, Reagan signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
Comment 6 by
Gary Gross at 15-May-08 12:37 PM
In 1982 alone, Reagan signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.,/i>
TEFRA didn't happen until 1986. Please get your facts straight.
Comment 7 by
J. Ewing at 15-May-08 12:46 PM
I think we've stretched the definition of "RINO" too far. Reagan said that somebody that agreed with you 80% of the time was an ally-- a Republican in this context. Considering how far left the Democrats have become, I think any Republican that agrees more than 50% of the time deserves our support UNLESS and UNTIL we can elect somebody better. Winning elections matters, and who controls the majority matters.
Besides, I think that many of these RINOs (the Override Six excepted) are just underinformed and confused by a lack of "direction" that ought to be established by the State and National Party. Yes, they aren't that "strong" on principle and let themselves get buffaloed by the MSM, but that's because they are "islands of principle" without a strong central grassroots-driven agenda.
We've got a chicken-and-egg situation here. If we could elect strong conservatives into a majority, we would likely get a conservative agenda enacted, but the ohly way to get a conservative majority is to convince people that a conservative agenda [is established and] would be enacted.
Comment 8 by
Freealonzo at 15-May-08 01:23 PM
Sorry Gary, try again. Here's the language from the IRS for the 1982 TEFRA:
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-drop/9901036.pdf
If link is too long, just google 1982 TEFRA
Cowards Turn Tail
The need for rebuilding the party has never been more apparent. According to
this AFP article
, shaken Republicans are now turning to John McCain as their savior. The AFP article calls it ironic. I'd prefer the adjective pathetic to describe this news:
Soul searching Republicans are turning to an unlikely savior, one-time party heretic and now presumptive White House nominee John McCain, as they try to stave off an electoral disaster. Stung by the Democratic seizure of three staunch conservative seats in Congress, Republican lawmakers fear a shellacking in November's general election, after losing control of both chambers of Congress in 2006.
The rise of McCain as their champion is not without irony, since the 71-year-old Arizona senator has quarreled with his own party for years on issues as diverse as immigration, campaign finance reform and global warming. But it is precisely that independent streak that is drawing Republicans to his coattails, hoping he can cleanse them of the stain of gridlocked Washington.
This is what happens when Washingtonian idiots misread elections. It's also what happens when spineless people are put in charge. As I said
here
, it's time to rebuilding from the state up. It's one thing to unite around the Republican presidential nominee; it's another to view him as the GOP's savior.
Altogether too often, Sen. McCain has stood opposed to Reagan's principles. Everyone knows that President Reagan would've vetoed BCRA because he would've seen it as violating the First Amendment. We know that President Reagan would've scoffed at the notion of man-made global warming because it's a liberal hoax. Instead of signing onto it, he would've demanded proof that humans were causing the earth's temperatures to rise or fall.
That's what Sen. McCain should've done instead of forging ahead with his MMGW initiave. He isn't doing that because he's easily taken to doing what's popular rather than doing what's right.
It's one thing to say that all leaders have flaws. That's obvious. It's another to say that people who do what's popular are leaders. They aren't because they're actually followers more often than leaders. Let's hope that Eric Cantor is thinking shortterm:
Eric Cantor, Republican chief deputy whip in the House of Representatives, told reporters that the McCain brand was healthier than that of his party. "John McCain is a demonstrated vote getter among independents, and his message and what he will be able to do in this election is extremely important."
Rep. Cantor is right in saying that McCain is more popular than the GOP right now. That's because the GOP stopped being the party of fiscal and social conservatives. They've stopped being the ideas people. They've stopped being interested in finding common sense solutions. Instead, they're more interested in running personality contests. Rush says that we stopped teaching conservatism. I think that's as good an explanation as you'll find.
I'd also add that we've become the top-down party. That goes against Reagan's principle of trusting the American people. Reagan was a man who believed in rugged individualism. Rugged indidualists don't let people furthest from the situation make the most important decisions. They'd tell Washington insiders to butt out and let local experts make their own decisions.
Those aren't the principles that John McCain believes in. That's why he's our presidential candidate, not the leader of the conservative movement.
Republicans would be wise to learn the distinction.
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:19 AM
No comments.
I Told You So
Yesterday,
I predicted that Democrats would throw a hissy fit
over President Bush's statement. Here's what I said yesterday:
President Bush warned in an interview Tuesday that the Democratic presidential candidates' plans to withdraw abruptly from Iraq could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States" and would "embolden" terrorists.
In a White House interview with Politico and Yahoo News, a president's first for an online audience, Bush said his doomsday scenario for a premature withdrawal "of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States."
"The United States pulling out of Iraq or pulling out of the Middle East or not maintaining a forward presence would send all kinds of signals throughout the Middle East," he said in the Roosevelt Room. "And it would shake everybody's nerves, and it would embolden the very same people that we're trying to defeat.
Now
Nancy Pelosi is saying that his comments
are "beneath the dignity of the office."
Referring to Sen. John McCain, Pelosi said: "I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments."
As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: "The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water's edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?"
In other words, President Bush nailed the Democrats right where it hurts. What's worse is that Rep. Emanuel is being a hypocrite. If politics stops at the water's edge, then why are Democrats playing politics with funding the Iraq war to appease the lunatics in their party?
If US politics end at the water's edge, then what were Democratic Whip David Boniors and Rep. Jim McDermott doing in Baghdad right before the war? Rahm Emanuel would be wise to remember that Rep. McDermott said that he'd trust Saddam more than he trusts President Bush.
If US politics end at the water's edge, then what was Nancy Pelosi doing during her trip to Syria? Let me rephrase: What was Nancy Pelosi doing during her trip to Syria other than lying about Israel's desire to restart talks with Syria? Did she think that the Speaker of the House was part of the Executive Branch? She must've thought that because she obviously thought she was the SecState.
To be blunt, Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi's comments are contemptible and dishonest.
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:12 PM
No comments.
Is This Why Democrats Boycotted FNC Debates?
I've always assumed that Democrats boycotted the debates that Fox News sponsored because they wanted to stay of the right side of their Nutroots friends. I'm now willing to entertain the notion that there might be another reason. When the Obama campaign sent Dr. Susan Rice out to defend Sen. Obama, they really stepped in it. I offer as proof this video of her appearance on America's Election HQ:
