The need for a compelling agenda
A photo by martinstelbrink, a Flickr.com user, shown under Creative Commons
On Election Night, a Democrat, in his late 40s, wins the Presidency. His party wins majorities in the House and Senate. Conservatism is thought dead. Political pundits predict that the Republicans will need to wait a long while before vying for the Presidency again.
President Bill Clinton was this Democrat in 1992. In 2008, Barack Obama followed suit.
Although much speculation surrounds the next Republican presidential candidate, the Republican party needs a compelling agenda. The Republicans unexpected victory in 1994 to take control of the House for the first time in a half-century after the party introduced “Contract with America,” laid the groundwork for Bush’s victory in 2000.
The agenda must deal with the challenges of the era - energy independence, the economy, terrorism, global warming, among others - in a reform-minded way, like the Contract of America in 1994. It also must strive to maintain its political base, while appealing to independents and moderates.
How will Republicans continue to apply their core principles - smaller government, lower taxes and social responsibility without inefficient government programs - to contemporary problems that may require billions to cure? How will the party seek to balance the budget, while helping Americans secure health care, quality education, and jobs?
In “Darkness at Dusk,” David Brooks, a conservative journalist, of the New York Times raises an interesting point. He says the Republicans are divided into two major camps: Traditionalists and Reformists. The party is currently led by the Traditionalists, who believe Republicans must keep its original principles of limiting government, lowering taxes, and restricting immigration. For example, Sarah Palin and supporters like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
The Reformists, on the other hand, see the Republicans becoming “modernized for new conditions.” The government must address new policies that address modern day issues, like the economy and global warming. The Republicans must appeal to Hispanics, independents, and the youth. Perhaps limiting government should no longer be a priority, according to some Reformists.
How will the party adapt to modern day issues - like health care - while staying true to the central convictions of the party?
Republicans need to break from insider politics. When I saw McCain announcing he had turned to Henry Kissinger for advice my heart sank. I knew then the election was over. Voters today are fed up with the same old politics as usual. Obama is an example of the same old politics. Look at his cabinet. How long will it take for people to be fed up with his Clinton era appointments and insider appointments? It is too obvious that a group of insiders control politics in DC. Republicans will only rally if they see new candidates with clean backgrounds, no secret society connections, no socialist/Marxist skeletons in the closet, and true conservative values. Washington insiders don’t get it. We’re watching every move they make and we know they decided before the election that the media, who are in their pockets, would back Obama. It was overwhelmingly obvious. If the party doesn’t lose the corrupt insiders, you may likely see a totally new Republican party that bypasses the existing party.
School choice is an issue that can break through. Every parent is frustrated by their lack of choice. While Obama can afford to send his daughters to Sidwell Friends or Georgetown Day, most Americans are stuck with whatever school is down the street, and if it’s a failing school then your kids lives are basically ruined before they even begin. School vouchers don’t cost anything and could save a generation of students and make the inner cities livable again. It’s a winning issue that needs to be championed - if only for moral reasons.
I think that above all else, we must never let go of the principle of pro-life. I have heard so many arguments about this, but we need to realize so many Christians in the United States what a moral leader. THIS is an issue no one should budge on. No ifs, ands, or buts.
It’s clear that this election was won by a cult of personality centered around the flawed statement, “Change America Needs”.
If I were to tell you that life is full of contradictions, it might temporarily sustain you in a frustrated search for reason. However, it simply ignores the fact that people are full of contradictions. Life is a self-sustaining action that, when sought through means of contradictions, fails. Have you ever seen a plant try to mangle itself? Have you ever seen a cat try to break it’s leg? No. Humans are the only living things capable of acting towards their own destruction, which is how they’ve acted throughout most of their history.
If I tell you that Americans need change, it is the same verbal pacifier, and one might suspect at this point that my intention was to deter you from the fact that Americans need to change.
Given time, all pacifiers will wear out. That is what we need now, time. Right now, we’re going through an era where people have to learn, (the hard way, perhaps) what it is they really want by experiencing and living through that which they don’t want.
The Big news in this election was that young people left the Republican Party. One reason is that no one in the Republican party articulates it’s principles properly that is appealing to young people, they are a party which has become known to be intolerant to immigrants and taken over by the theocons , that doesn’t excite young people nor the urban republicans.
If the GOP wants the young people back it needs to take a libertarian direction.
This is should be the first goal of all the republicans. We need to gain control of the congress in 2010. Its hard to say exactly what our goals should be in the 2010 election because we need to see how Obama performs. Though I doubt it being a great two years. If he does get his agenda out we need to show the people all the wasteful spending that is going on. How it is actually hurting the economy which in turn is hurting businesses and hurting the people. Democrats don’t believe in trickle down economics but in the next four years if the democrats control everything we will all believe in trickle down failure. Once the top is hit hard because of taxes it trickles down to the people. Just to name one main topic that should be addressed in 2010.
idbogue:
Can Republicans, in your words, “break from insider politics”? For example, some say Jimmy Carter was an ineffective President because he tried to break away from Washington by putting in his own people.
Deane:
Interesting point. What is this libertarian direction? Why do you believe it would be attractive to youth?
The problem with the election was that the left-leaning media decided it would be part of Obama’s campaign committee–rather than objectively report the facts and let voters decide for themselves. CNN had the lower-income folks’ ear, because only CNN is available in the lowest-two priced cable and satellite packages (i.e., Fox News and MSNBC are available only in the two highest-priced packages).
I think the party needs to get back to conservative principles, and the structure set forth by our Constitution.
The youth is not stupid, they have seen what’s going on. Taxation & spending out of control, bailouts, exec parties at spas, none of this stuff looks good or appealing. This big government approach that the Republican Party took on in the last 8 years cost us this election.
If this mess doesn’t get under control, expect to lose more elections.
Right now Sarah Palin is battling annonymous McCain campaign workers. How much worse can that get, when people in your own corner turn on you just to use you as a scape goat, and the dude in charge, McCain hasn’t lifted one finger to set the record straight. Hopefully he will do that when he goes on Jay Leno.
What’s the deal with using Hillary to get votes for McCain? That was crazy. This whole Republican ticket was doomed from the get go, the only positive was and is Sarah Palin.
It seems to me that Traditionalists have lost this election, by pandering to the christian right.
Great blog. Keep up the good work. FYI: David Brooks, one of the founding editors of The Weekly Standard, has not been a conservative since he joined the New York Times.
Let’s be clear here, there is no one solution to the GOP regaining its support. It isn’t just young people that left the Party and embracing Libertarian values won’t be the magic solution. The key is that the Party has once again lost our identity, as we have done in the past. You can look at the two years after Clinton was elected. If you thought the infighting is bad with Palin et al now, you should have seen it then. It wasn’t until a visionary Congressman from Georgia stepped up to rebuild the GOP’s identity and communicate it effectively. I should know; I worked for the guy and I was working in the 104th. Going on, though, you can see what happened when infighting continued … people within the Party got a little too uncomfortable with the attention Gingrich was getting. So, they attempted to find ways to promote themselves, as opposed to working for the Party. Then, George W. Bush came along and again the first couple of years of his Administration, the Party was reunited again behind the President who was defending us from terrorists and rebuilding after 9/11. He was re-elected with a mandate, but failed to adequately respond to the issues Americans were interested in. As such, they turned away and we once again lost our identity in 2006 and of course this year. So, there’s no secret formula or magic solution to us regaining our identity. We merely need to look to the past.
davidwwalters, I don’t know what election you were watching, but as a social conservative, I can assure you that there were no candidates pandering to me.
The GOP is a pro-life party. It has been since the Roe decision took from the states the power to regulate abortion, and denied basic human rights to an entire class of persons: the unborn.
Perhaps you’re pro-choice; if so, you’re wrong. But this election was not fought over abortion or the other life issues. It was about personality. The war hero vs. the shiny new black guy. To the extent that it was about any issues, it was about people getting money from the government (which McCain promised in excess just as Obama did) and getting out of the war in Iraq (which Obama will not do any faster than McCain would have.
Social issues? I’d love to have an election about social issues. First, let’s consider nominating someone who can and will make the case for the traditional Reagan-Republican viewpoint on them. Several of the primary candidates this time would have done that, but the party elites said we had to have Giuliani or McCain, because they were the only ones who could beat Hillary.
And those elites were happy as clams as McCain continued losing ground right up to the day he finally made a gesture to the only group he hadn’t pandered to in a decade: social conservatives. And then the “moderate” pro-abort party elites who had demanded party unity from social conservatives started jumping ship and endorsing Obama.
Give me an articulate pro-life nominee and then we when we lose, I’ll consider the possibility that it might have been the message.
Until then, I’m going to think that people like you are using the defeat of a moderate to justify their long-held dream of cutting out the pro-lifers.
No Republican in 40 years has won without 80% of the Republican vote. Try and see how much of the base you can get with a Giuliani.
Given a choice between a real Democrat and a faux Democrat, people pick the real one every time.
It would be a mistake to abandon core conservative values, and issues. I believe that the most recent presidential election was won by the Dems because of a “perfect storm” led primarily by a media who were almost completely in the tank for the democratic candidate. Couple that with a war-weary electorate and highly charismatic Dem candidate, and you have the result we saw on Nov. 4. However, it seems undeniable that the more conservative Rep. candidate (Palin, not McCain) energized the Rep. base, turned out huge cheering crowds, and a vote far closer than most projected. I think the Reps. should stay on message, be proactive in doing what they’ve been elected to do (lead!), and stop attacking and eating their own such as we are now witnessing post-election with Sarah Palin. That is a turn-off for everyone - inside and outside the party!
~Lori
I also do not think there need be any discussion about the issue: pro-life is right and if you disagree, you are wrong. There is no more mystery than that.
Unfortunately, those of us who care about pro-life do not have a party. While the Republicans held both the presidency and majority in congress, nothing was done, except Ron Paul’s yearly proposal which is left to gather dust. It will be a very, *very* long time before I vote for a Republican because he/she claims to be pro-life.
Meanwhile we’ll have to deal with more generations of the pro-choice moral contagion, justifying mass murder because somewhere, someday, some woman’s life might somehow become endangered because of a pregnancy - all to accommodate sexual immorality without the bother of any consequences whatever.
David G., more than nothing was done for pro-lifers when the OP held Congress and the White House, but far less than should have been done was even attempted.
Now, even the little that was done will be undone.
I’m as pro-life as they come, but I also recognize that 67% of the country disagrees with me regarding abortion.
The choice shouldn’t be between a Democrat and a faux-Democrat. The choice should be between a Republican who espouses the principles of limited government and a Democrat who espouses none of those principles.
The question remains, what is for a pro-lifer to do? I think that we should stop relying on a silver-bullet from the Federal government. Let’s work to make the abortion issue a moot point by effectively transforming our communities.
Why is that not a better solution?
“Perhaps you’re pro-choice; if so, you’re wrong.” — I thought that was funny.
I don’t think anyone will be able to win a pro-life version of Roe, and extreme pro-life positions like Palin’s alienate too many moderate Republicans.
Because this is another post, I’m allowed to agree with BT. The best way to combat abortion isn’t to outlaw it, it’s to address the underlying factors that cause people to get abortions.
I don’t think that many people use abortion as some type of delayed birth-control after bacchanalian sex orgies; in reality, abortion is a difficult choice that no woman wants to make and has a profound impact on the women that choose to get one.
Trying to pass legislation that criminalizes abortion alienates and divides. Addressing the underlying problems unites. Even if, say, BT and I disagree about the implementation, I would work with him to transform communities.
I would love to see a day when women have the choice to get an abortion and no one does. That’s a much more inclusive and noble goal than trying to criminalize the choice.
Rob wrote: “It’s clear that this election was won by a cult of personality centered around the flawed statement, “Change America Needs”.”
I submit that the only thing it really needs is an apostrophe - s :
“Change America’s Needs”
P.J. O’Rourke has an excellent piece in the previous issue of the Weekly Standard on how opposition to abortion can be a viable part of a conservative program, without indulging in cultural war rhetoric. Actually the entire piece concerns how conservatives have lost their way. A must read.
All of this debate may become moot if the hispanic vote goes the way of the African-American vote. After amnesty is granted, which it will be, 20 million (est) voters will emerge primarily in Texas, Florida, and California. If they vote 9/10 Democrat, Texas will be a swing state and Florida will be lost. Even Cuban voters, long loyal to the Republican party are slanting more liberal. There will not be a strong enough constituency, no matter large the backlash against a far liberal administration, to back the Republican party for any presidential bid if we lose the hispanic vote. On the other hand, many hispanics do agree with conservative social issues, being largely Catholic. If the Hispanic vote went largely for Republicans, California might be a swing state in the near future. But if that doesn’t happen, I dare say we might have the current Democrat Party on the right, and a socialist party to the left.
I’m not conservatism is dead, but it’s certainly in need of dramatic revival and reform. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to argue the morals of giving illegal immigrants amnesty. If we hold our position, which alienates many Hispanic voters, we can kiss our biggest electoral state goodbye. Its going to take a move towards the center and abandoning some of the rhetoric that was aimed at evangelicals for arguments that apply to more normative view.
Gay marriage is becoming largely an argument of semantics as states give more and more rights to couple with civil unions, for example. Abortion needn’t be an argument over when the fetus becomes a person with rights, but could be an argument of drawing the line in where man’s dominion over nature should end. Not to mention the plight of hundreds of couples who deeply wish to adopt a child but can’t because mothers who don’t plan to keep their baby abort it. That same argument of drawing a line in where man’s dominion over natural processes ends could be used against physician assisted suicides.
Another key constituency that is in danger of being lost is, surprisingly, the middle class. President-elect Obama ran on the promise of giving a tax breaks and ‘reverse income taxes (welfare) to the middle class. We can learn a valuable lesson from Europe, who, once they gave their middle class a 4 day work week and a check in the mail, realized that the middle class won’t give it up. They’ll vote for whichever party will let them keep their long vacations and short work weeks.
Without a dramatic reform, the GOP might RIP
BT:
I agree. The party cannot consist of single issue voters, or if you disagree with me, you are wrong personalities.
Why can we not be more tolerant of those that may agree with us 80 or 90 percent, but may differ with us on Roe v Wade?
We become as intolerant as some democrats of differing opinions. And for some voters, they aren’t single issue voters. But to reject anyone who disagrees on one issue, is insane.
If we make people feel unwelcome because we become a single issue party, then we reduce the number of people we appeal to. And the idea is, we should appeal to a much wider spectrum of people.
Back to what we really stood for. People having more control of their own lives, their own checkbooks, smaller government, free to achieve.
Isn’t that what we used to stand for?
Deane was absolutely correct. As the neoCon element of the GOP took over party leadership at the top, the party became borrow and spend as opposed to tax and spend. Where did the young people go? The energetic, idealistic part of the party that played such a huge role in Goldwater and Reagan’s success? Where did the originalist Republicans go? Where did the less government is the best government Republicans go? They went to Ron Paul, the Libertarians, and the IAP/Constitution parties.
As we ridiculously went soft on principle and policy, they were caste away as fringe elements and heretics and didn’t fit into the neoCon grab for power and lock on the political leadership positions. How can a Republican who is true to conservative principles vote for any kind of bailout?
We are not a coalition party. Liberalism is sold to constituents with handouts, freebies, gimmies and government programs. That is the only way it can be sustained. You must actively sell Liberalism. Conservatism sells itself. When we try to sell Conservatism in the same manner, we sell it out. All the things promised to sell Liberalism are antithetical to Conservative principles. When we sell Conservatism in this manner, we appear (and rightfully so) un-principled. Reagan did not sell America on Conservative values, he championed them. He won landslides without a sympathetic media and without talk radio. Excuses abound, but in the final analysis, WE let down Conservative principles not the other way around.
For what it’s worth, I do not believe our (i.e., the GOP) problem is so much related to us fading away from our values. Sure, there has been some measure of identity crisis in recent years, but at the core, the GOP knows what the GOP is about and what we’re here to do. Unfortunately, the rest of the country does not. The rest of the country has gotten under the determination (somehow; we’ve let them) that the GOP is merely a handful of religious extremists from hickville that is so far out of touch with the public we’re almost insigificant to the point of fading from existence completely. Indeed, some extreme liberals are so far caught up in their world and ideas of what the country is all about that they actually believe the GOP won’t be around in a few years. This is not reality.
The problem, however, is centered around the fact that we haven’t communicated effectively or in a way that is tactically or strategically effective. Newt was a genious politician, besides just being a genious. He knew how to resonate with people, without straying from core principles and values. He knew how to work across the aisle, all the while remaining politically effective. He could educate you on so many ideas without lecturing you or being boring.
In terms of talking specifics though, one of the main ways we have failed strategically is by letting liberals take control of the most effective and most prominant medium available: the internet. I wrote at Redstate.com how if we are going to regain our strategic advantage, we must compete in the technology/web realm. This is step #1 for us to take care of.
In 2000 and 2004, we were able to be effective despite significant adversity and hurdles because we approached the process from a tactician’s point of view - not just talking about our values thinking everyone should automatically jump on board. We can’t expect the rest of the country to jump on board when even we don’t have a certain clue on where we’re going.
It’s good to see that other young conservatives are frustrated. I’ve been shouting at the top of my lungs that it is time to take back the GOP, to kick the racists and other bigots into the gutter where they belong, and to remind America why conservatism has been the true progressive movement behind our nation’s greatest achievements.
On Mark’s point:
I think the democrats’ advantage on the internet has been overblown. For a long while, the internet was almost exclusively the domain of right-of-center bloggers. What we’ve been noticing in the last few years is angry, left-wing activists, such as MoveOn, Code Pink and DailyKos, have rapidly moved onto the net as well, making their presence here seem larger than it is.
Where we have failed, in my opinion, is allowing liberals to hijack many of our core issues and twist them into something many of us don’t even recognize. They have taken advantage of the horrendous favorability numbers of GWB and have attached to him EVERY conservative piety, even though he hasn’t been the best standardbearer. They are using this opportunity to roll the entire conservative movement into GWB, with the hopes that the American people will throw the baby out with the bath water. This cannot happen.
I don’t think this is a moment to panic, but we must move forward with care. My first suggestion to all my conservative friends out there would be to talk to your liberal colleagues. You will make yourself sharper by having your viewpoint constantly critiqued, and you may enlighten someone else in the process. If we sharpen up our own positions and get them to the point where we really know how to defend them, we’ll definitely be on the right track.
There is an opportunity here to push for government cut backs.
To be the party who advocates the same for GOVERNMENT as the people who are getting cut back, getting laid off, etc.
How did Obama win? (this is the laughable part), he won by being a TAX CUTTER.
12 hours after election, Nov 4, Democrats were already speculating on doing away with his plans for a tax cut. (Media started grabbing it.)
But Rahm immediately went out on Nov 9, Meet the Press countering that claiming as the center piece of his campaign, it will be a priority. But, 10 days later, on Nov 19, it has now slid to the absolute bottom of the priority list. My guess, by December, his people won’t discuss it at all. They want it off the radar. They just wanted to control how you found out that you weren’t going to get his much vaunted tax cut.
The fact he won on his claim of being a tax cutter sticks in my teeth so hard, I could scream.
How in the WORLD did we let the democrats hijack that from us?
All indications from Washington are, the republicans are going to go along with the democrat big spending.
We will continue to see erosion if we become a version of Democrat lite.
I am not advocating that we become the party of “No.” but, we need to have better ideas to combat the government spending. States are falling into debt. The Federal government needs to cut their spending and give us PERMENANT tax cuts, and I see a tremendous opportunity for our party to grab back what was taken from us.
As Forbes says, we can tell Government to “get your act in order” on anyone seeking money to spend, Federal, State, Local governments alike.
And have our own ideas to push, private PARTNERSHIP situations, medical malpractice reform (can go at the democrats because the trial lawyer association is deeply intrenched), to lower Health Care costs (anyone notice that the democrats were absolutely SILENT on that one?)
Go hard and fast on the public private sector partnerships to fix what is broken, hammer how the government needs to cut way back, and give the people their money back, etc, rather than encourage the growth of government spending (all levels) while we, out here, those who pay taxes, are suffering.
Start small. Pick one issue to take back, and focus. The economy is the most important issue to everyone (when times are bad), and it will continue to be for some time.
As Ross Perot says about his companies, start small, aim to be the best at something, anything. But pick something to focus on, and build on that.
Lets start by focusing on giving Americans their money back first, rather than expand an ever increasing appetite of the government.
Re: making government smaller:
My fiance (another good conservative) and I have been hypothesizing about how to make this happen for a while. Here are the two things we came up with in order to tackle government creep. Sadly, both would probably require constitutional amendments:
1) Institute a balanced budget rule. In other words, federal expenditures (tax cuts, programs, services) cannot outpace federal income (taxes, fines, revenue from tariffs and infrastructure). This rule could be relaxed for a year with a Congressional majority vote, but the required majority would increase every time the relaxation was extended (say, 60% for the 2nd year, 70% for the 3rd year, etc). This would allow for deficit spending in a crisis, but it would have to be a real crisis for everyone to agree to keep it going.
2) Institute a rule where the bottom income tax bracket is tethered to the top income tax bracket. For example, mandate that the bottom bracket and the top bracket can’t differ by more than 30%. In practice, this would mean that if the bottom bracket pays 10%, the most you could charge the top would be 40%. If you want to eliminate taxes for the bottom bracket (that’s where we are today), the most you could charge the top is 30%.
This would force us to make government smaller because it would force voters to make trade offs. Right now, voters believe they can have their tax cuts and their programs — not only is this not true, it’s wrecks the incentive system in the political process. What do you guys think?
Sadly, I think that assertion is true. Universal healthcare is the worst kind of public policy: the one that can’t be repealed. But it might not matter, anyway: already 40% of US citizens don’t pay income taxes, and with Obama’s “95% of Americans get a tax cut” plan (doesn’t that sound a lot like Oprah? And YOU get a tax cut! And YOU get a tax cut! And YOU get a tax cut! I digress) that number will rise to 45%. Soon, 51% of the U.S. won’t pay income taxes, which means they will have no incentive to reduce the number of government programs or demand the government spend their money more wisely. So I fully admit the whole idea might be worthless if Obama gets his way in healthcare and taxes.
@ LockeFox - I think you’re definately on the right track with the Balanced Budget rules here’s how I envision it.
1. Constitutional Amendment requiring Balanced Budget. If a balanced budget is not passed by the beginning of the next fiscal year, a one-time supplemental budget may be passed for 30 days. During the 30 day period, Congressional pay is frozen. If a balanced budget is not passed within 30 days, all funding is automatically frozen and uniformly reduced to a level that balances the budget. Additionally, Congressional pay and staffing budget for the following year will also be uniformly reduced by the same percentage the balance to be paid into the general fund treasury.
2. Budget surpluses up to 10% of the previous must be held in trust in the general fund of the treasury and may not be applied to following budgets without ¾ congressional vote.
3. Require that all bills be budget neutral and fully funded or offset by spending reductions unless passed with a ¾ approval in both houses.
id like to see a post on what the central convictions of the republican party are. i didn’t see one in the archives. i also didn’t browse thru each post but didn’t see what i am looking for in any of the titles.
@ Jesse - I would too. That’s the problem with the party, the “leadership” has for some time not had any central convictions of what the party is. Which is why we’re in the state we are in now.
Look at the bailout. Would the Founding Fathers have voted for that? Lincoln’s Republicans? TR’s Republicans? Goldwater Republicans? Reagan Republicans? No.
Rockefeller Republicans? Neocon Republicans? Yes. Take a look at my post in Huckabee the author for my humble opinion on what central convictions we ought to have.
<i>extreme pro-life positions like Palin’s alienate too many moderate Republicans.</i>
This is so sad — because while Sarah Palin is certainly pro-life, it’s pretty hard to see anything extreme about her actual policy proposals as Gov. of Alaska.
The Tiny Fey SNL parody, MSM caricature of Palin is extreme — and unfortunately that’s not only what most young people see most of, it’s all they see. Sometimes even by Reps.
If the 2008 economy had merely stopped growing, rather than become a recession/ depression, it’s quite likely Victory in Iraq with McCain/ Palin would have won, even against the anti-Capitalist, anti-Christian media.
Looking at Pew exit results in 2004 vs 2008, one can quickly see that 2004 had 3 main issues (Iraq-Terrorism, Economy-Gov’t, and Morals), but 2008 was 65% economy, 24% Iraq-Terrorism, with neither abortion, gay marriage, nor even morals as a top ‘main reason’ for voting for the one voted for.
Catholics (~55%) voted for Bush in 2004, but (~54%) voted for Obama in 2008.
Pro-life Christians, even Big Gov’t ones (like many Catholics), have been kicked out of the Dem party, they have nowhere else to go.
Pro-capitalist (Libertarians?), even pro-choice ones, have been kicked out of the Dem party, they have nowhere else to go (OK, I was a Libertarian years ago, and voted for Ron Paul in 1988 against Bush I).
Winning Republicans will be supported by both of these groups.
On the economy, Reps should push total Tax Holiday, until employment rises or inflation is positive. This is the fastest, fairest way to let the democratic consumer market choose the future winners by the people, not the DC elite (both Dem and Rep).
On abortion, <i>Roe</i> should be repealed so that it is a state issue, but the biggest push should be Adoption, not Abortion.
Leave a comment!
Latest Video
Recent Events
View more photos >
Connect On
Subscribe
© 2009 The New Republicans. All rights reserved. By using this site, you accept our Terms of Use.