Home › Blogs ›

Conservative Engineer's blog

An Open Source Contract

Submitted by Conservative En... on Sat, 10/25/2008 - 09:30
in
In 1994, something amazing happened. A collection of Republican candidates and incumbents came together and agreed to a cohesive national plan for Congress which included reform and a heavy focus on limited government. This well crafted plan was known as the Contract with America; it was a contract that these people who signed on would promise to strive for in the coming term to help reform Washington and rope in the government. This contract was violated, in the end, as there still are "GOP Revolutionaries" Congress in office more than 12 years later, earmarks are out of control, and term limits are unheard of. Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, and Fred Thompson are the only people I can think of off-hand who self-imposed term-limits on themselves and followed through.

What we need is a new contract that members of Congress who don't abide by, aren't worth voting for. A contract that truly includes reform and bold new ideas to reboot the economy would be amazing for Republicans and for the country as new ideas are being discussed. Current Republican leadership are unwilling to consider such a prospect. I say we, the foot soldiers of conservatism, take action on our own and create a new contract for the American public. In fact, I call upon the Next Right, Red State, Race 4 2008, and Save the GOP to be the frontline activists in creating a new, Open Source Contract for America (OSCA).

Why Open Source? The greatness of the open source movement is that it allows everyone's thoughts and ideas to be brought together and reviewed by their peers. The openness allows everyone to be a part of the contract, making everyone a part owner who is responsible for making it work. How do I propose this is done? Consider the following...

First, an open period where suggestions are made for formal planks of the contract. Begin with the original planks of the 1994 Contract with America and or shrink from there. Take all the options and allow voting for the top 20 planks which become part of the OSCA. Require people to log-in with some sort of OSCA account in order to be able to vote on the platform. Then, once the planks are established -- that's when we begin the most interesting part, the legislation.

Each plank must be backed with specific pieces of legislation. It can not be mere rhetoric, or the right will become just as empty as the left's current leader. We need a plan of attack. Take each plank and flesh out with specific ideas -- for example, if we have a plank to prevent wasteful spending, include a year long earmark moratorium as the first piece of proposed legislation. Perhaps a balanced budget amendment as the second. If we have an elected official reform plank, bring back the push for term limits and perhaps an idea I'm borrowing from Sandy Treadwell -- require full disclosure for members of Congress who's family members or former staffers register to become lobbyists at any level of government. On the economy? Work with the Beyond Bailouts program to come up with clever, conservative based approaches to reform our government.

Why don't I do this myself? I have neither the time, nor the web capabilities to create such a new contract. I'm an engineer working full time in Baltimore that's looking to buy a house in the near future with my wife. My free time is limited. But there are others out there with the time, the dedication, and the ideas that could create a brighter future through this type of a venue. I await responses and ideas.

 

Cross posted from Old Line Elephant

Random, Recent Obama Thoughts

Submitted by Conservative En... on Tue, 07/08/2008 - 14:01
in

Here’s my random thoughts I’ve had recently on Obama. Barack Obama has just started realized that in order to win this election he needs to transform himself into the average American in terms of his demeanor and his views on the issues. The problem? He just finished running a ridiculously long and expensive primary where he had to paint himself as an elite liberal in order to keep his support base. The Average American isn’t an elitist liberal, in fact…they’re hard working, they would rather have less given them from the government if they’re able to keep more of their hard earned money, they are starting to realize the progress in Iraq and are supporting the surge, they don’t think running out of Iraq by the end of 2009 is a good idea, they don’t support coddling our enemies, they don’t support spending our hard earned tax dollars to rebuild Africa instead of rebuilding here at home, they don’t support driver’s licenses for illegal aliens (which Obama was on the record supporting), the list goes on.

Obama’s been given a pass from the media for his shifts on the issues, but recently some of his shifts are starting to be noticed. His refusal for public financing really made the very people he used to build up his support angry – the media. His shifts towards the center on Iraq are starting to make the anti-war left nervous, and perhaps more likely to be open to the idea of Bob Barr or Ralph Nader. In both cases, they feel betrayed by Obama’s realization that those who come out en masse to vote in the Democratic primary…aren’t the same people who will vote in November. The Party of MoveOn.org and Daily Kos isn’t the party that nominated Obama…they’re just the primary goers. Proof positive that this is the case are the 2006 elections of Joe Lieberman as an Independent in Connecticut, despite losing the Democratic nomination and the election of socially and fiscally moderate to conservative Democratic Senators in Virginia and Pennsylvania (Casey and Webb). The Democratic Party still is, at its core, the party of Bill Clinton, not Al Sharpton; the party of Joe Biden, not Chris Dodd. These are the stalwarts who will vote in the general…not the flash in the pan voters who jumped on the bandwagon for the primary. There’s a reason after a while despite out spending Clinton nearly 2 to 1 in some states…Obama kept losing to her. Obama needs these voters, or he’s done for and as he courts these very voters…he’s going to make the anti-war left which nominated him in the first place really, really angry. Hopefully, for America's sake, he’ll make them just angry enough to vote against the would-be first President of color.

Just some random thoughts, opinions always welcome..

Cross posted from Matty N's blog

Conservatism Can Work

Submitted by Conservative En... on Fri, 06/27/2008 - 14:39
in

Since 2006, it’s been almost a curse to be called a conservative. The President is a “conservative,” and the country has quickly turned their back to him. The Grand Old Party is at its lowest “party affiliation” ranking in polls since the time of Watergate. The title conservative has become synonymous with Bush and the GOP in the US and those aren't necessarily something that you want to be associated with. Their "brand" is toxic. But, conservatism, no matter the "brand," can always win if it’s advertised correctly and shown in a way that makes sense to the everyman. This is how a platform can be rebuilt and save the conservative movement.

Taxes and spending have always been winning conservative issues, recent polling has shown that Americans think tax hikes hurt the economy and would rather have less offered by the government coupled with lower taxes. Candidates should provide detailed roadmaps to cutting earmarks, perhaps a permanent moratorium on them. Candidates should discuss details of wasteful spending – bring up waste in detail, such as the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere. Bring up details on pork, Club for Growth style. Don’t bring up tax cuts unless you bring up the following items first  – cutting wasteful spending, lowering the deficit, balancing the budget, and opposing unnecessary tax hikes. Those four points are worth discussing at length. Americans are, on average, fiscal conservatives and hate to see waste.

Term limits. Why did Republicans in Congress give this up after the Contract for America? Because after a goodly number of them went to Washington, they got greedy. They loved their fat paychecks and began to stuff their constituencies with pork in order to keep getting reelected. If we propose term limits in Congress– it might work out that we cut back on the number of career politicians. Five terms for the House, two terms for the Senate, 2 Terms for Governor. Seems pretty straightforward. If the GOP were to champion this issue...again, it would easily be a winning issue. Couple it with pay cuts for politicians instead of pay raises, and I think the American public would thank you for it. Yes…I’m suggesting that our politicians take voluntary pay cuts in order to help lessen the national debt.

Crime is a winning issue. I don’t mean being criminals; that means you Larry Craig and Joe Bruno…I mean crime related legislation. Stiffening prison sentences, making it more difficult for violent offenders to get bail, even support of the death penalty can be a winning issue. See George Pataki in New York in 1994. Reinstating the death penalty was a major plank for him…and he beat the three term incumbent as a no-name one-term State Senator from downstate whose claim to fame before that was being Mayor and an Assemblyman for less time total than the incumbent was in office. In Statewide, City-wide, and even national elections – being the tough on crime candidate can be a major boon. Not caring about party lines when enforcing the law is a BIG boost. Republicans could learn a thing or two about that.

Social issues are rarely winning issues and not worth discussing in most parts of the country. So, what can be while still being socially on the right? The Courts. Don’t point to specific forms of legislation, just point out the fact that you want to see judges at all levels of governance to strictly adhere to our Constitution. That’s enough to make the most militant of conservatives drool…I know I do when I hear Fred Thompson spout on about federalism and strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitution. What does this do? It makes Roe v. Wade into an issue, indirectly. You’re saying you wouldn’t mind Roe overturned, without actually saying so. How come? From the strictest constructionist perspective, Roe was poorly decided. Just because you think a law is bad, doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Conservatives sticking to a viewpoint of strict construction of our Constitution is a brilliant way to win back supporters.

The final thing to do is weed out all those from within the party that conflict with these viewpoints. Get rid of those connected to President Bush in a public sense, ex. Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Condi Rice, etc. Get rid of those who are clearly corrupt and continue to make the GOP look bad, ex. Joe Bruno, David Vitter, Larry Craig, John Sweeney, etc. Next – we need younger candidates. We don’t need to force them to run for President, (i.e. Obama), but we need to have new fresh faces becoming the face of the GOP. Michael Steele should be the next chairman of the GOP. We need Republicans like Bobby Jindal, Randy Daniels, Josh Romney, Mark Harris, and Sarah Palin who have bipartisan appeal, who understand some of the things I’m bringing up. We need them as the faces of our party, not the face we have today.

We need a new Republican Party that is transformed into a reformist, tax cutting, pork busting, crime fighting, strict constructionist party that brings a new spin on conservatism. A new direction, this direction, is a winning direction for conservatives. A new Contract with America needs to be built on a foundation of the most logical and powerful of conservative points that can readily be championed by the entire Republican Party. I feel these are those issues.

-The Conservative Engineer

Good News from the Iraqi Front

Submitted by Conservative En... on Fri, 06/27/2008 - 14:21
in
In news that will probably be ignored within a week or so, things are getting better in Iraq. In fact, the Iraqi military…yes, the Iraqi run military, not the US military presence, will be taking full control of the Anbar province. Why is this important? The Anbar province was filled to the gills with insurgents and includes the borders of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan…where foreign militants had been sneaking into Iraq. According to a Pentagon report on the region, the “…average number of security incidents remained at five incidents per day over a 90-day period, accounting for less than 4 percent of the attacks in all of Iraq…This represents a 10-fold reduction compared to the summer of 2006 and is half of the rate of the last few months of 2007.” That’s big news.

This comes along with other big news that the Iraqi government is forming a new oil production company after the Iraqi military, (again forces run by the Iraqi government…not the US), “…brought Shiite militias in the Maysan capital of Amarah under control.” Yes, Iraqi forces are helping stabilize regions of their own country. This company will begin developing for oil in the Maysan region upon approval of the Iraqi parliament. Once again, this is a huge deal for Iraq and shows that there is progress during this protracted war.

Why isn’t the media discussing this in detail? Why doesn’t the media care about the fact that the Iraqi war is actually going more smoothly and that the Iraqi government is starting to kick it up and work the way it should? Why doesn’t the MSM actually discuss this at length? Because they can not. To admit they were wrong about the Iraq war would be a folly for them, as Cal Thomas points out. Here’s an excerpt from his article –

The main reason progress in Iraq is not receiving more attention is that the progress is considerable and the big media are not paying attention because they don't like the new storyline. They prefer "America defeated," not "America victorious" because defeat increases the likelihood of a Democratic electoral blowout in the fall.

A headline in last Saturday's New York Times tells you all you need to know about the reluctance of the mainstream media to report on progress in Iraq. With what sounds like information produced only after an editor was water-boarded, it reads, "Big Gains for Iraq Security, but Questions Linger."

If this headline writer were reporting victory in World War II, it might have read, "America wins; German and Japanese Psyche Seriously Affected." The 1969 moon landing might have read: "Man Lands on Moon; Will It Hurt the Lunar Environment?"

It’s sad, but it’s true. It is now John McCain’s job to tell the nation that the Iraq war is finally making some traction, making giant leaps, and that the people of Iraq are reaping the benefits, not merely us. Their penchant for yellow journalism will make it difficult to make headway, but it needs to be done. The nation needs to know, it’s their God given right as human beings to be told the truth about what’s going on with their own countrymen abroad. McCain needs to make sure we know the truth, because we all know the media isn’t going to tell us.

This is cross-posted from my primary blog, Matty N's Blog.

 

Syndicate content