Two Approaches
Feb 18th, 2010 by David Anderson
I believe that Republicans need a positive agenda to build a sustainable majority. I side with leaders like Congressman Ryan and former Speaker Gingrich as well as talk show host Shawn Hannity. Some like former Congressman Davis believe that all we need to do is oppose the Democrats then worry about policy later. There are merits to both positions and a successful strategy will have a combination of the two, but I honestly believe that a lack of a consistent agenda will leave us short and open to a third party emergence.
The Republicans had no back up in 2006. They only had the Bush agenda. When it was popular the party soared. When he ran into problems, the party floundered. The party played defense when it was led by Davis, Delay, and Hastert. I do not think that is the way forward.
Your thoughts?
Let’s start with the Constitution David. Let’s build from these basic principles:
Constitutionally Limited Government
Fiscal Responsibility
Free Markets
Respect for the Founders
If we really study and practice THESE principles we can re energize the base and rebuild trust in the party. It has started with the grassroots groups…now we need to see a party stand up to be counted with those grassroots groups. It’s time to start nominating candidates who value the Constitution…not those who believe they are past it or that arguments involving the Constitution are “not winnable”. Continuing to nominate the same tired old progressives won’t help the GOP succeed but rather lead to its destruction.
EvanQ, I doubt you and I have any thoughts left to go back and forth about – but if you read David’s post I believe he is talking about a policy agenda with substance. That is the missing link for the Tea Party. Please don’t my two cents as anything other than a conversation. I don’t feel like getting my balls broken for questioning stuff. I do not intend to criticize or ridicule. Just to hash stuff out in a friendly way.
No one I know of has any argument with your principles. They are good. The problem is – translating to policy. How do we balance our desire to have free markets with the need to protect ourselves from predatory businesses? Like when banks raise rates without notice after a credit card purchase is made. Are we for or against the recent credit reforms?
1. Constitutionally limited Government. Most people would say we have that now. We have a conservative Supreme Court, many many conservative District Courts, all devoted to interpreting the limits of the Federal Government. I would guess a really strict Constitutional view of limited Government would work in favor of terrorists at this moment in time. So there is an ebb flow to this based on what’s going on. I heard Governor Palin say certain persons (terrorists arrested inside the United States) were getting Constitutional rights – as if Constitutional rights are something granted for good behavior. It is a sticky business trying to promise Constitutionally limited government.
2. Fiscal Responsibility. No one argues with that. Today the President set up the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Like Reagan did when Congress could not fix social security. Are we for this new commission or against it?
3. Free markets. Absolutely. But if a politician stands up and says I am for Free Markets what does that tell us? Everybody is for free markets. Who is not? I guess you read where Republican Leader Cathcart introduced new law regulations to prohibit free market developers from charging for amenities that they do not deliver. Like what Ryan Homes did at Odessa. Are we supposed to be for that government intrusion into the free market or against it? The citizens in the community are screaming for regulation. Most regulation stems from outraged citizens screaming for protection for bad operators in the free market.
4. Respect for the Founders. I’d say that’s a done deal.
Fresh political energy, like the Tea Party, has to be directed at both public and private sectors. Freedom can be endangered by either. The Founders may not have envisioned the size and scope of modern Government or the size scope of the modern transnational corporation. Each impact individual freedom. Since you are a leader in this fledgling Tea Party movement, I ask you to consider the impact huge monopoly business interests have on our Freedom as a you pursue the Founders values.
I’m sorry think123…I cannot debate issues with someone who refuses to live in reality…a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court?!…LOL what a joke.
How do we balance our desire to have free markets with the need to protect ourselves from predatory businesses? Like when banks raise rates without notice after a credit card purchase is made. Are we for or against the recent credit reforms? – think123
Common Sense would prevail here I think. If the cardholder was not made aware of the terms of the card they can sue the company and if enough people do so, said company goes out of business. Also, competitors would see the demand for more honest dealings and look for ways to make their offers more attractive like with flat interest rates instead of adjustable rates. However, your entire ideological base places your view of reality within a seemingly alternate universe where ALL of this government intervention is actually EXACTLY what the Founders intended and that somehow we should all ignore that right in front of us we are seeing the government manipulating industries and controlling every aspect of our lives.
I would guess a really strict Constitutional view of limited Government would work in favor of terrorists at this moment in time. So there is an ebb flow to this based on what’s going on. I heard Governor Palin say certain persons (terrorists arrested inside the United States) were getting Constitutional rights – as if Constitutional rights are something granted for good behavior. It is a sticky business trying to promise Constitutionally limited government. – think123
The powers within the Constitution limit the government and may only be applied to American citizens. Terrorists are not American citizens and if they are and are working against the United States…they’re guilty of treason.
Fiscal Responsibility. No one argues with that. – think123
Obama TRIPLED our deficit and has already signed more than $3 Trillion in new spending. Oh yea..he’s a MODEL of fiscal responsibility *rolls eyes*
Free markets. Absolutely. But if a politician stands up and says I am for Free Markets what does that tell us? Everybody is for free markets. Who is not? -think123
GM…Chrysler…under the thumb of government control…Cap and Trade a.k.a. govt control of the energy market and my favorite… UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE…Obama is as much in favor of free markets as I am a fan of Woodrow Wilson.
Respect for the Founders. I’d say that’s a done deal.
Fresh political energy, like the Tea Party, has to be directed at both public and private sectors. Freedom can be endangered by either. The Founders may not have envisioned the size and scope of modern Government or the size scope of the modern transnational corporation. Each impact individual freedom. – think123
Really? A done deal huh?
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” – Thomas Jefferson
“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” – Barack Obama
Ok…that’s enough debating reality with someone who lives in fantasy land.
Evan, the Constitution is not just for citizens. It is for non-citizens inside the USA. It’s really not for that either. The Constitution is not aimed at citizens or non-citizens it is mainly a document that addresses The Government. Saying what the Government can and cannot do to the people in the United States. As in . .
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
That goes for every house in the USA citizen or non citizen houses.
As in the 6th amendment:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”
Get to know your Constitution.
If the Tea Party says get back to the Constitution it would take a very liberal interpretation to make the Sixth Amendment for citizens only? Nevertheless people are working overtime to find ways around this so we can treat terrorist arrested inside the USA special. That is what the whole debate is about. How do we modify obvious Constitutional rights to meet the needs of this terror war.
The Supreme Court is still wrestling with it. Congress had to pass laws in defining enemy combatants – laws that are still be challenged as unconstitutional. Here are the constitutional hoops dirty bomber Jose Pedilla has us jumping through.
http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/supreme-court-case-to-clarify-rights-of-noncitizen-criminal-defendants-132326.php
FYI, “treason” your suggested method for prosecuting terrorist applies to crimes of betrayal committed against one’s own Government. Like spying. Prior to 9/11 the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil was committed by Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh . McVeigh was not tried for treason. He was convicted on explosives murder charges executed. Killing people is murder. When you betray your country, that’s treason. 1950′s atomic spies Rosenbergs were convicted of betraying their country, but were executed for espionage not treason.
We need to get back to
I am kind of surprised you are all for making up punishments just to fit the mood. We do follow the Constitution here. I want terrorist hung by the balls. But how do you know a terrorist is a terrorist until he’s had a trial. We are hampered in certain respects by the Founders Values.
http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/supreme-court-case-to-clarify-rights-of-noncitizen-criminal-defendants-132326.php
I hate to say that I agree with points that both of you raised, but I do. I agree with Evan that we need to start with first principles. I agree with Think123 that we need to apply those principles in practical ways.
For the ’10 elections, Republicans need only run, hard, against the BO/Pelosi/Reid socialist agenda. On virtually every issue, the Socialist-Democrats polls numbers have tanked.
And in case you haven’t noticed, BO’s numbers have dropped precipitously (approval below 50% in most polls), while Pelosi and Reid’s numbers are in the garbage can. They are (predictably) hanging themselves…stay the course.
This is a general strategy; in some states, a specific issue may be paramount.
Worry about ’12 after the ’10 avalanche. The Socialist-Dems are setting themselves up for a complete debacle this November.
Good luck winning. After you get rid of all them undesirables you gotta ask yourself one question: What exactly are you going to do?
“you say you’ve got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We are doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is, brother, you’ll have to wait”
An old buddy of mine from the sixties wrote that.
Exactly, winning but having nothing to do afterward but fight with each other is a recipe for 4 more years of Obama. The people will say Democrats at least try to do something, but Republicans just care about winning elections then do nothing. The President would run against a do nothing Congress while the media would spin for two years that the Democrats didn’t really do anything that bad.
If the Republicans do something and he vetos it, then he is the do nothing President. If the Republicans do something and he signs it. They can claim credit when it works. The brand will be reclaimed.
Republicans have better answers. We have to summon the courage to walk the walk. That is why electing people like Davis or arguably Castle is hazzardous in the long run. They never have any proposals to better the lives of most people. They just react and send out press releases. That is not leadership. These are troubled times. I want to see leaders who solve problems instead of press releasing how much they care.
That goes for every house in the USA citizen or non citizen houses. – think123
Non-citizens shouldn’t have a house within the country right? Would the Founders have allowed a non-citizen to own property in America?
As in the 6th amendment:
Once again, these ammendments can only apply to citizens of the United States. I know that because the Preamble says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. I also see the following: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Seems clear to me that our Constitution can only apply to citizens of our own nation.
When you betray your country, that’s treason – think123
Could you tell me how an American citizen joining the Taliban and fighting against American military forces OR aiding terorists (keep in mind that Treason is also used when giving aid or comfort to an enemy) in carrying out their terrorists attacks is NOT betraying America?
I am kind of surprised you are all for making up punishments just to fit the mood. We do follow the Constitution here. I want terrorist hung by the balls. But how do you know a terrorist is a terrorist until he’s had a trial. We are hampered in certain respects by the Founders Values. -think123
I’m sorry think…but you are a complete idiot. We don’t try enemy combatants in civilian courts, we don’t try enemy soldiers in civilian courts. We try them in military courts per the UCMJ which is in accordance with all necessary international laws (that should make you, as a progressive, happy to know). (Maybe you could read up on that.) They get a trial, they are allowed to present evidence, etc. These are people captured while fighting against our military and/or carrying out attacks against our military, our government and our citizens.
EvanQ, to answer your question “Would the Founders have allowed a non-citizen to own property in America” The answer is yes, the Founders loved it. They were big borrowers from foreigners. If you took time to inquire about things instead of being obnoxious, you would discover a whole world of knowledge like:
“There exist detailed estimates of 1803 foreign investments in the United States (provided by Samuel Blodget, writing in 1806). These show that 62 percent of the stock of the Bank of the United States and 35 percent of stock in state banks were held by foreigners in 1803. Roughly 5 to 6 percent of the stock in insurance, turnpike, and canal companies was owned by nonresident foreigners.”
I guess you heard Abu Dhabi Investment Council purchased Chrysler Building second tallest in NYC? And Canada is perhaps the largest nonresident owner of residential and commercial real estate in the U.S. So yes – duh non-citizens own a lot of stuff in America. Guess the Founders left a loophole in their somewhere.
All the property owned by non-residents gets the same constitutional protection as any other. The constitution limits what the Government can do here inside the USA as well as how we handle U.S. citizens abroad. Get the concept? How does a guy who is trying to make a name as Mr. Get Back To Following The Constitution turn out to be so clueless as to the basic concept?
Anybody see the movie Idiocracy? I think I have been transported to that future time where ignorance is the norm.
You are equally misinformed when it comes to how constitutional rights apply to non-citizens. It’s all very complicated – take the time to educate yourself.
think123….there’s no help for you…you’re totally hopeless.
Of course we allow foreign groups and government an interest or stake in our country. There’s a difference between that and allowing a non-citizen to own property and live within the country….without citizenship. There’s also a major difference between that and some how projecting the Constitution of the United States on residents of other nations. How in God’s name (and this was all done in His name) could the founders do that? They couldn’t because they never intended for us to be in a position to meddle in foreign affairs much less to extend the benefits of our national Constitution to the entire world.
Don’t you have some progress to make somewhere?
EvanQ, you say
“There’s a difference between that and allowing a non-citizen to own property and live within the country….without citizenship.”
Please google United States Permanent Resident Card, also known as a “green card” it’s an identification card attesting to the permanent resident status of an alien in the United States of America. I think it’s usually good for ten years. There are millions of non-citizens living here legally. Many own houses.
Yes, I have a lot of other things I would rather be doing, but I am devoting time to this end of politics so readers don’t go away believing things that are not true. Nothing is more important than truth in politics.