Moving Forward, Part II
Yesterday, I laid out the first 3 points in moving forward: (1) that we’re ok with a big tent as long as the RINO’s are with us on the big things; (2) that we have a coherent appealing agenda and (3) that we need to pick some ideological fights.
My 4th point is related to the third point:
We must get back to our idealist roots. That means talking proudly of the effects of the tax cuts. That means talking about the necessity of missile defense. That means talking about the attacks that the Patriot Act and the SWIFT and NSA intercept programs thwarted. That means talking about closing down the Mexican border before any immigration reform legislation moves an inch. That means talking about confirming judges that aren’t squishy moderates or make up the Constitution on the fly.
I’d frame missile defense in the context of North Korea developing ICBM’s. I’d frame the Patriot Act, the SWIFT and NSA programs as tools that we’ve used to prevent real terrorist attacks, specifically citing the terrorist plots they’ve prevented. Let Democrats defend their actions. Put them in position where they either abandon their positions or they’re forced to say ‘Yes, we want to prevent terrorist attacks but we’re more worried about American’s civil liberties.’ Filibuster the immigration reform legislation. Let them defend the position of granting illegal immigrants citizenship so illegal immigrants ruin municipal and state budgets.
5. We must be a team again. That means relegating John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Chuck Hagel to the back bench. If you aren’t with us on the important stuff, you’re out of there. Yes, there’ll be headlines about how they’ve been shunned by ‘far right ideologues’ but we don’t have time to worry what the Agenda Media says.
Another thing that we’ve got to do is take our message on the road, explaining what our agenda is, why we believe in it and how we’ll implement that agenda if given another majority opportunity.
6. We must reject timid, status quo policies. That doesn’t mean that everything on the agenda must be big sweeping reforms. It does require that conservatives confront liberals when they advocate the wrong policies.
Missile defense is something that I’d challenge Democrats on. It’s guaranteed that they’ll say that (a) it’s too expensive and (b) it doesn’t work. Our first response should include this question: What amount is too much for defending ourselves from North Korea’s, and eventually Iran’s, nuclear weapons? Another question I’d ask is this: We put a man on the moon. We’re creating life-lengthening perscription drugs and medical treatments daily. We’re building high tech things all the time. Why should we believe that we aren’t capable of building an effective missile defense system in the next 5 years if we commit to a robust research and development program?
Technorati Tags: National Security, Missile Defense, Civil Liberties, Patriot Act, NSA, Illegal Immigration, Terrorists
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
November 11th, 2006 at 12:53 am
[...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: Military, Homeland Security, National Security, Intel, Terrorism, Immigration, Conservatism, Media Bias | [...]
November 11th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Does anyone really care what you think anymore, C.C.? Nuts like you and Amy Proctor have helped ruin the G.O.P. Happy now?
November 11th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Benn and all the rest his cow-manure- constituted ilk try to rationalize their extreme positions by verbally moving the goal posts of “moderate” further to the left daily.
Got news for you, Benn (a.k.a., Been had by liberal lies): If we, conservatives, have moved any in the last ten or twenty years, it’s been ever so slightly to the left, not to rightist extremism. Check out where the conservatives were in 1986, policy-for-policy, then check out where the “moderate” left was the same year. You’ll find the extreme movement has been from the left to the fringes, while the right is painted as having moved to the right fringe. Nothing less truthful could be told.
Face it, it is your kind, full of wishful thinking and warped beliefs about the ability of humanity as a whole to conform to your ideas of acceptable human behavior that has pulled this country ever deeper into an abyss from which it may never withdraw, all in the names of “tolerance” (as intolerant a bunch I can’t imagine), “diversity” (which means if you don’t follow exactly what they tell you, you’re dead meat) and “unity” (we’ll teach your kids to snitch on you if you so much as question our indoctrinations or try to teach your own kids that they know better what’s good for them than we do).
Bottom line for your comment, Benn, is that you don’t have to say anything - Nancy, Ted, Howard, Harry and all the rest of the extremists have already said it for you. As a matter of fact, I’d be careful if I were you because you could end up uttering something as foolish as Kerry does every time he opens his mouth, but the “leadership” won’t be happy if you say something that’s foolish to them. Then you’ll have to be “re-educated” or banned from their ranks. That is what they do, isn’t it?
And you think we’re Nazis!
November 14th, 2006 at 7:43 am
A question from a California Libertarian. Why does Chuck Hagel elicit such a large negative reaction from Conservatives?
Everything I have read about him, including a detailed look at his voting record, would indicate that he is a principled fiscal and social conservative. More so than most in the Senate, including most Republicans.
Granted, he has consistently opposed Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney on their reasons for and their handling of the occupation in Iraq. However, events on the ground in Iraq over the last two years show that Hagel was spot-on in this criticism. Is his position on Iraq the only reason for his “big negatives” with the Right? Or am I missing something?
November 15th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
You mean these idealist roots? My, how the mighty dreams have fallen by the wayside.
Anyone want to add up for me how many of these got dealt with? How does the failure to make good on this ‘contract’ make the R’s any better than the D’s? It’s not all about ‘terrorists’ you know.
On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.
1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. (Bill Text) (Description)
2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, “good faith” exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer’s “crime” bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools. (Bill Text) (Description)
3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. (Bill Text) (Description)
4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children’s education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society. (Bill Text) (Description)
5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. (Bill Text) (Description)
6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. (Bill Text) (Description)
7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. (Bill Text) (Description)
8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. (Bill Text) (Description)
9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: “Loser pays” laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation. (Bill Text) (Description)
10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. (Description)
Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.
Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract with America.