Rensen's blog

I am crossposting this article, written by a fellow Black conservative (yes we DO exist superdestroyer) because it contains some tips about the path to avoiding defeat, that Mccain would do well to consider.

Source: http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F3D4C1BC1D8B0D91!887.entry

How to lose to Barack Obama

Imagine yourself in the bleachers of an arena observing a crucial competition between two challengers.

"La-dies and gentlemen, we are in for a treat tonight. The winner of this contest will be declared the leader of the free world.

In the right corner, our first contender, wearing red shorts, is a war hero who survived five years in solitary in a prison camp. He weighs in with twenty five years in Congress and is an expert in national defense.

In the left corner, in blue shorts, we have our second contender, weighing in with a mere three years in the U.S. Senate, eight years as a little-known state senator and ... time as a community organizer (Jack, is this script right?).

Gentlemen ... on my count ... ready? May the contest begin!"

DING! DING! DING!

(Thud)

"And the winner is ... the guy in blue shorts??"

 

Does this sound like an unlikely scenario? It's not at all. Here's how the more experienced, more seasoned competitor could get knocked out by the guy who many regard as a lightweight. All that has to happen is for red to follow the following keys to defeat.

 

Losing Strategy #1 - Do what she did.

Hillary Clinton is intellectually brilliant, politically mature and fiercely determined. She and her husband created a powerful political machine and, in the wake of the Democratic disasters of 1980, 1984, and 1988, should really be credited with saving their party from extinction. Her toughest competitor turned out to be a guy who wasn't even out of high school yet when her husband started his first term as Governor of Arkansas. He came to the U.S. Senate only three years ago, was an obscure state senator for the eight years before that and held jobs as a college professor and community activist for the nine years before that. Many people from all political perspectives are still scratching their heads trying to figure out how she lost to him.

Here's a partial explanation of how it happened. Clinton surrounded herself with a set of highly paid advisors from the party establishment - very smart people who knew how to win elections back in what feels like a long time ago. She didn't establish a simple message that resonated with either her target audience or the public at large. And then she eventually alienated one of her most loyal constituencies, without which her party has not won a national election in decades. For all her talent and effectiveness as a politician, she took a lot of bad advice from people who didn't understand what voters really wanted as much as they thought they did. And, unfortunately for her supporters, this is one of the reasons why she lost to the kid.

So, here's the first way that McCain can lose. He can ignore his own instincts and follow the advice of the highly paid advisors from his own party establishment, the ones who knew how to narrowly win elections against less popular competition in years less hostile to Republicans. He can fail to establish a simple message that connects with the average voter. And he can alienate - or fail to connect with - the Republican Party's most loyal constituency, Evangelical Christians and "values voters," without whom the party has not won an election since 1972. For all his experience as a war hero and a respected legislator, he can also lose to the young man from Illinois.

 

Losing Strategy #2 - Depend on negative campaigning.

Simply put, John McCain and his supporters cannot win by spending all their time telling the American people why not to vote for Barack Obama. They need to spend time telling people why to vote for John McCain.

I know that we all hear from the political commentators that negative campaigning works. And it certainly works to some extent - except when it backfires. But it works best on willing victims - those who either help out their competitors by acting the part of the caricature the opposition painted them as - or those who don't do anything to defend themselves.

In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson seemed determined not just beat his Republican rival, Barry Goldwater, but also to humiliate him. The Democrats charged that Goldwater was a warmonger who wanted to start a nuclear war (capped off with the infamous "Daisy" ad). They called him a racist. And they not so subtly implied that he was .. eh .. not all there psychologically. It would have been tougher for these attacks to stick if Goldwater himself didn't help the cause by joking he'd like to lob a nuke into the men's room of the Kremlin, that he wanted to saw off the Eastern seaboard of the U.S., and saying things like "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." His own words made the job of Johnson's "5 o'clock club" - his opposition researchers - a lot easier.

Just four years ago, in the 2004 contest, the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" launched a vicious public attack on the Democratic nominee. As the group gained more and more attention and their charges damaged Kerry more by the day, he did something quite unexpected for a Vietnam combat veteran who came under fierce fire. Absolutely nothin'! Many people think that his campaign's slowness in confronting the attack may have cost him the election.

But Obama doesn't say all that much that gets him in trouble. He's a very good talker and can talk his way out of trouble. And he's not afraid to fight back. Last summer, he seemed to be intimidated at the prospect of making eye contact with Hillary during the debates. But the long warfare with Hillary has made him a stronger candidate and he's now pretty darn good at the counter punch - much better than you'd expect from someone so new to politics. I don't think he's going to just sit there and take a lot of shots. Not these days.

So, another way McCain can lose is to have his team overcommit to attacking Obama and making the campaign about just why he shouldn't be President instead of giving a lot of reasons why McCain should be. It would work better if Obama were a goofball or such a pacifist that he refused to fight back. But he's neither.

 

Losing Strategy #3 - Take too much advice from the establishment.

According to a Real Clear Politics article by Bob Novak, John McCain is finding himself under unwanted pressure from President Bush, Karl Rove and others to pick former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as his running mate.

The Democratic Party would love nothing more than to paint the candidacy of John McCain as one that would lead to a third Bush term. Although Obama has targeted McCain with this tag line, the reason it hasn't totally stuck is because Senator McCain has earned a reputation of taking orders only from Senator McCain. He is well known for refusing to simply fall in line to obediently do the bidding of the party establishment. However, if it becomes perceived that he is being coerced by important members of the current Administration to pick someone acceptable to them against his own wishes (and against the wishes of a significant portion of the Republican electorate), he will give legs to the theory that a vote for him is a vote for Bush. If this happens, those legs will kick everyone involved away from the Executive Branch of the government come this November.

 

Losing Strategy #4 - Either tolerate racial politics - or - simply concede the black vote

The very worst thing that the Republican National Committee could do in facing off against Obama is to tolerate any hint of racial politics. Failing to do so will do more than simply alienate the small percentage of black voters who do vote for the Republican Party. It will also alienate many white voters as well. Most people of all ethnic groups do not want to be associated with racism. Tactics such as the ad run against Harold Ford in 2006, the infamous Willie Horton ad, and anything like it, may have worked in years past, but will lead to lingering disaster for the GOP if repeated in 2008. Hey, wait, TVV. Are you saying we can't say anything bad about Obama because it will look racist? Of course that's not what I'm saying. His record, his associations and policies are subject to scrutiny and criticism just like anyone else's would be. But there's a difference between campaigning against a candidate who happens to be black and running against "the black guy." Choosing to do the latter will do much more harm than good - for the Republicans, for the Democrats and for the whole country.

Another key component to losing tip #4 is to simply assume that black voters are going to vote for Obama. I'm black. I'm very proud that a black man has earned a major party nomination for the Presidency. Am I planning to vote for Obama? No! He seems like a nice guy, but he's way too liberal on social issues like abortion and marriage. And contrary to what many people assume, most black voters are not liberal. The reason most black voters vote for the Democrats is because: a) there has been a 48-year rift between the GOP and African Americans and b) even today, most Republicans don't bother to ask for our votes. So, if McCain's folks really want to up the chances they'll lose the election, they need to tear out a page from the old Republican Playbook and just assume that we won't vote for them and that they shouldn't make a serious effort to ask. (It should be noted that in the key swing state of Ohio, where Bush wrapped up his victory over Kerry, he did better than his national average among black voters, which accounted for about a third of the vote difference between Bush and Kerry in that important state.)

 

Losing Strategy #5 - Tick off your most loyal constituency

 

Every election in recent memory that a Republican has won the White House (which is pretty much every election in recent memory), which group has been the backbone of the Republican coalition? Is it the guys on Wall Street? The crew on Fox News? The Club for Growth? Well, those folks are all definitely important. But I'm going to think for a minute and try to figure out which group of Republican voters have been the most faithful and without whom the party is doomed on Election Night. Oh - I know. It's the faithful.

If Evangelical voters stay home this fall because they're discouraged, feeling neglected, or not actively sought out, it very well may guarantee a Democratic victory. Remember of course what happened in both 1996 and 2000 when Evangelicals stayed home? Dole lost the first contest and Bush would have lost had Al Gore carried his home state (which is something that even Walter Mondale did in 1984 and Mike Dukakis did in 1988). In 2004, Evangelicals came out in force, voted for the Republicans and that is of course the reason why the Republicans did not lose (the most common "most important issue" for voters was "Moral Values").

So, how can McCain and the GOP blow this thing big time? They can refuse to adequately reach out to values voters. And I don't just mean reach out with words and appearances. I mean reach out by balancing the ticket with someone who understands the issues that are important to us. Contrary to what many people believe, most of us don't actually want a Theocracy and aren't trying to use the government to push our beliefs on others. However, many of us have firm beliefs of when life begins (this backed up by science), the importance of family, and don't want our kids to be taught propaganda and shown trashy content all the time. Many of us respect everybody but want to be given a little respect as well. If Mike Huckabee becomes John McCain's Veep, the party will avoid one more way that they can lose on Election night. Of course, Huckabee helps as well because he also appeals to some Fiscal Conservatives (you know, the ones who actually like the idea of a 0% Income Tax), many blue collar workers who otherwise might vote Democratic, and conservative African Americans.

 

It's a tough year for America and for Americans. The race could certainly go either way. But one way to almost guarantee that it won't go McCain's way is for him to conduct himself according to any of the above.

I'm taking a risk 'thinking out loud' here... and I don't have all the political background material I probably should, so I'm open to a debate on the subject, but...

I think GOP 'Libertarians' should join the Libertarian party, rather that try to reform the GOP into a party that is so libertarian in philosophy, that it becomes about as influential as the Libertarian party, (as in, not very) and cedes the political landscape to the democrats for decades to come.

As a Huckabee republican poking around in the blogosphere this last week or so, I couldn't help but be aware of the outrage and the outpouring of disdain directed at Huckabee by libertarians, from their candidate Barr, down to open letters to the editor from the public, about the supposed slight to their Party that he made during an interview recently.

As usual the analysts cut and paste single sentences out of context, in an attempt to make Huckabee out to be a big government socialist, when the entire commentary makes his position much clearer, and obviously conservative in perspective.

Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people. That's not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff." But what you've done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community. You can take the cops off the streets and just quit funding prison beds. Are your neighborhoods safer? Is it a better place to live? The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before.

My experience in Arkansas was, a lot of the so-called conservatives said "Let's cut the budget." But they wanted to add prison sentences, they wanted to eliminate parole, they wanted to have harsher sentences for various crimes. And I said "OK, that's fine, but that's going to be expensive. So which do you want?" You can't have both, or you do what the federal government has done, and this is where I think Republicans have been especially irresponsible. Their approach has been [to] just kick the can down the road and let your grandkids pay for it.

So they run up huge deficits ... but they've pushed those costs down to the states, and the states have to eat it, because they have to balance their budgets, they don't get to print money or borrow. Or the federal government just runs up more deficits and let's the next couple of generations worry about paying for all this stuff.

People keep failing to realize that Mike's problem was not with libertarianism, or with that party in partiicular.. but with a SOCIALLY LIBERAL Libertarian ideology that is beginning to permeate the GOP. Everyone is gung ho to be economically fiscal hawks.. but hey, anything can fly on the social agenda.

That ends up COSTING more, because government HAS to intervene when you start talking about the criminal justice systems having to compensate for lack of personal responsibility.

If you identify the classic republicanism that worked.. ie Reaganism... that's the GOP brand that produced the greatest level of success for the GOP.. it worked because all three legs of the platform were equally valued.

Conservative idealogues are indeed drifiting back to a 'Goldwater' style of conservatism..that didn't work. It was an excellent governing philosophy, but It failed to produce winning majorities and never quite made it mainstream because it was percieved as being too cold. Perception is relaity in politics.

The GOP thrived when it embraced social conservatism into its fold as well, because it provided a much needed people/responsibility centered balance to the platform.

Huckabee is right. We cannot throw the values/social reform agenda out the window and expect to continue to win on a 'don't tax and spend money' platform alone.

The only mistake he made was using the word Libertarian when talking about his concern in this shift in GOP focus. It got the Libertarians all riled up when he was not in fact attacking their right to their own platform, but concerned about the encroachment of their platform ideas into ours.

I begin to wonder however, if it was deliberate.. Barr, the libertarian candidate is siphoning Huckabee voters dissatisfied with the Mccain nomination in some southern states and threatening to be the GOP Nader this fall.

Was Huckabee trying to throw some ice on libertarian momentum in his capacity as a McCain surrogate? (Especially after Barr tried to capitalize on Mike's NRA gaffe for political exposure)

I think there is some tension between Mike and the Libertarians because McCain and Barr will be battling for the same social conservative votes if Huckabee's not on McCain's ticket. (Something else McCain should consider as he ponders his veep pick)

Is the GOP big tent strong enough to survive a resurgence of Goldwater style republicanism?

So now we know.... It will be Barack Obama and John McCain contending head to head in contest to be the president of these united states, and early polling seems to indicate that the vice presidential pick of each gentleman will have a significant influence on how each candidate fares in any number of swing states.

There is a chance, no one knows how great, or how small, that John McCain may decide that the former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee, may be the person he needs on his ticket to give him the best chance at winning in the currently democratic friendly electoral environment.

There are many, many self described conservatives who have said this would be the last straw, that they would not vote for a McCain/Huckabee ticket. Much of this hostility is rooted in opinions formed of the man, out of the nuggets produced by opposition research in the primaries. Nuggets designed to paint Huckabee in the worst possible light.

Just as we have gone through the process of sifting through the partisan rhetoric to find the areas on which McCain and conservatives can agree, I believe that it is time to start making the case for acceptance of individuals who though not perfectly aligned with our multi-pronged philosophies, may perhaps find themselves on the ticket and in need of our support.

I do not limit this evaluation to Huckabee alone. I would love for someone to make Mitt's case as well, as it is foolish to believe that the entire conservative base is united behind the idea of Mitt for VP, especially in regards to the social conservative wing of the party.

I do not believe in reinventing the wheel. A fairly comprehensive summary of Mike Huckabee's governing philosophy and positions on the issues was written by Joe Carter, a member of his rapid response on line team during the campaign. I am not sure how significant its impact was at the time, but I would like to reintroduce it to the blogosphere for your consideration.

As with most politicians, some of Mike's positions have evolved or been refined over time. Some may define this as a 'flip' but I challenge you to find a 'flop.' Huckabee has never moved back and forth on the same subject multiple times. He has always delievered on his campaign promises and on his word in general. As a result, his supporters feel safe in believing that his current political platform does indeed represent who and what he would be about in the whitehouse, in any capacity.

Please attempt for a few minutes to lay your preconceptions to the side and 'discover' Mike Huckabee for the first time again. I am not asking you to decide if he is a 'conservative' by whatever definition you may use, but rather, to think about if someone with these governing philosophies would be a conservative influence on a president McCain, and ultimately, if a team of these two individuals is more acceptable than a Barack Obama administration.

The article is lengthy, but well worth the read. Thanks for your time, and please be polite in your commentary, even if you forcefully disagree. Here is the link to the original source:

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004182.html

For the past few months I've been defending Governor Mike Huckabee against an onslaught of attacks on his character, positions, and record. When I worked for the campaign I spent a significant portion of my time clearing up misconceptions for journalists and parrying dishonest accusations made by other campaigns. And here on this blog I've written numerous posts responding to the questions posed by bloggers and rebutting claims made by sundry interest groups.

Yet all this time I've failed to make a positive case for why I feel Governor Huckabee to be the most visionary and conservative candidate in the race. I naively assumed that everyone was seeing what I was seeing. Indeed, I'm embarrassed to admit that I failed to recognize that not everyone would have the same familiarity with his policy positions as his former Director of Research.

To rectify this situation I've compiled a list of his most significant policy positions on a range of issues--from tax reform to national security. While all of this information can be found online, I thought it would be useful to cut away the excess verbiage in order to provide as succinct a set of statements as possible. I've also included a prefatory section that explains Governor Huckabee's philosophy of governance.

Although this compilation is not exhaustive, I do believe that it provides a useful outline for anyone who wants to familiarize themselves on Huckabee's true positions on the issues.

Philosophy of Governance

Governor Mike Huckabee: "To me conservative governance means following the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers, it means recognizing that Jefferson won the debate with Hamilton, and that we want very strong, energetic, innovative states, with government both as limited as possible and as close to the people as possible. The states should not usurp functions that can be handled locally, and the federal government should not usurp functions that can be handled by the states. An important part of being a conservative President for me would be strengthening federalism. Conservative governance also means an emphasis on personal responsibility and letting the free market function unencumbered, so that Americans have tremendous opportunity, but not a guaranteed outcome. It means smaller, more efficient government; lower government spending; lower taxes. It means keeping the government out of our lives and letting families keep as much of the money they earn and make as many of their own decisions as possible. It means allowing younger workers to have personal Social Security accounts. It means getting entitlements under control.

I believe that our rights come from God, not from our government; that the people should retain as much power and be left alone as much as possible; that the federal government should not do what can be done at the local or state level; that our government belongs to the people, not the lobbyists and special interests; that government at all levels exists to serve the people and not the other way around; that we must respect the separation of powers and no branch should usurp the authority of another; that my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people from all threats; that the free market, low taxes, and minimal regulation are the keys to economic growth and prosperity; that Americans are owed equal opportunity, but not an equal outcome; that we are a culture of life and recognize that each individual has intrinsic value and worth; that we are only as strong as our families; that we owe a huge debt to those who have given their lives for this country to protect the freedoms and way of life for which they sacrificed.

I would weigh all of my decisions in the context of those principles to assure that I am doing the right thing and not the popular or expedient thing. I will always err on the side of protecting life, strengthening our families, and protecting our citizens and our country from possible threats to their safety."

(Response provided to the American Conservative Union)

Issues and Positions

Tax Reform

-Make all tuition for higher education tax-deductible

-Make health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. (Low income families would get tax credits instead of deductions.)

-Preserve and expand President Bush’s tax cuts

-Eliminate the marriage penalty

-Cut taxes on savings

-Eliminate the Death Tax

-Reduce counterproductively high personal and corporate marginal tax rates.

-Encourage "baby boomers" who plan to work into their late 60’s or even beyond by giving them tax breaks, like additional exemptions or a “working senior” deduction.

-Long-term goal: implementation of the FairTax so that American workers keep their entire paycheck, American businesses can compete on a level-playing field with their foreign competitors, and so that we can brings jobs and investment that are currently parked off-shore back to the United States.

Economy

-Subprime mortgage crisis: begin a second round of negotiations with subprime lenders with an eye toward expansion of the “Hope Now” program.

-Cut burdensome red tape that drives up the cost of products and keeps employers from hiring more workers or raising wages.

-Reduce frivolous lawsuits which drive up costs of products and medical care.

-Institute free trade that is fair to America. We will expect our trading partners to live up to their obligations—everyone must play by fair rules.

-Open new markets for American products.

-Ensure the Federal Reserve adapts a pro-growth, low-inflation policy.

-Veto earmarks and unnecessary discretionary spending

Energy Independence

-Implement a national energy security policy which will end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil within ten years by conserving, exploring, and inventing our way to independence in energy.

-pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.

-Remove red tape that slows innovation, allow the free market to sort out what makes the most sense economically.

-Set aside a federal research and development budget that will be matched by the private sector to seek the best new products in alternative fuels.

Social Issues

-Support passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life.

-Support passage of a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

-Oppose all embryo-destructive research.

-Veto any pro-abortion legislation, including federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

Education

-Make all tuition for higher education tax-deductible

-Support the rights of parents to home school their children

-Support states that want to create more charter schools or implement public school choice.

-Allow states to develop their own benchmarks.

-Work towards a clear distinction between the federal role in assisting and empowering states and in usurping the right of states to carry out the education programs for their students

Healthcare

-Advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services.

-Reform medical liability

-Support the adoption of electronic record keeping

-Make health insurance more portable from one job to another

-Expand health savings accounts to include all Americans.

-Making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. (Low income families would get tax credits instead of deductions.)

-Encourage the states' role as laboratories for new market-based approaches.

Immigration

-Ensure that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed along the border by July 1, 2010.

-Ensure that the border fence construction is completed by July 1, 2010.

-Increase the number of border patrol agents.

-Fully support all law enforcement personnel tasked with enforcing immigration law.

-Policies that promote or tolerate amnesty will be rejected.

-Propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and leave the country. Those who register and return to their home country will face no penalty if they later apply to immigrate or visit; those who do not return home will be, when caught, barred from future reentry for a period of 10 years.

-This is not a "touchback" provision. Those who leave this country and apply to return from their home country would go to the back of the line.

-Employment is the chief draw for most illegal immigrants and denying them jobs is the centerpiece of an attrition strategy.

-Impose steep fines and penalties on employers that violate the law.

-Institute a universal, mandatory citizenship verification system as part of the normal hiring process.

-Prevent the IRS and the Social Security Administration from accepting fraudulent Social Security numbers or numbers that don't match the employees' names.

-Promote better cooperation on enforcement by supporting legislative measures such as the CLEAR Act, which aims to systematize the relationship between local law and federal immigration officials.

-Encourage immigration-law training for police. Local authorities must be provided the tools, training, and funding they need so local police can turn illegal immigrants over to the federal authorities.

-End exemptions for Mexicans and Canadians to the US-VISIT program, which tracks the arrival and departure of foreign visitors. Since these countries account for the vast majority of foreigners coming here (85 percent), such a policy clearly violates Congress' intent in mandating this check-in/check-out system.

-Reject Mexico's "matricula consular" card, which functions as an illegal-immigrant identification card.

-Inform foreign governments when their former citizens become naturalized U.S. citizens.

-Impose civil and/or criminal penalties on American citizens who illegitimately use their dual status (e.g., using a foreign passport, voting in elections in both a foreign country and the U.S.).

-Eliminate the visa lottery system and the admission category for adult brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.

-Increase visas for highly-skilled and highly-educated applicants.

-Expedite processing for those who serve honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces.

-Improve our immigration process so that those patiently and responsibly seeking to come here legally will not have to wait decades to share in the American dream.

Judges

-Huckabee's judicial philosophy: "I believes that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a "living Constitution." The meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed by judicial fiat. The powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution come from "We the People," and judges have no right to prohibit the people from passing democratically-enacted laws unless we have explicitly authorized them to do so. Nor can vaguely-worded language in the Constitution be used by judges to give them power over subjects the framers never intended our founding document to address. As such, any interpretation of the Constitution that is based on "evolving standards of decency," penumbras, or any other judicial fiction, is antithetical to the rule of law, and must be forcefully challenged."

-Appoint justices and judges who not only share his judicial philosophy (e.g., Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito), but who also have established themselves within the conservative legal community as faithful adherents of originalism and textualism.

Social Security

-Allow younger workers the option of personal accounts.

-Allow letting people take the money in their account at retirement and buy an annuity.

-Encourage "baby boomers" who plan to work into their late 60’s or even beyond by giving them tax breaks, like additional exemptions or a “working senior” deduction.

-Since some retirees don’t need their Social Security to retire comfortably, offer them the option of a tax-free lump sum for their children or grandchildren to get when they die, which would delay some payments for decades.

National Sovereignty

-Oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty.

-Oppose the U. N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

-Oppose the North American Union,.

-Oppose the Kyoto Treaty.

Veteran's Affairs
Veterans will be provided the following "Bill of Rights":

-The right to a mandatory rather than a discretionary mechanism for funding veterans' health care, to eliminate year-to-year uncertainty that the funds they need will be there for them

-The right to obtain full and clear explanation of all benefits and comprehensive assistance in obtaining those benefits.

-The right to have a claim processed within six months.

-The right to the fullest possible accounting of the fate of POW/MIAs and the right to be designated as POW/MIA.

-The right to access state-of-the-art treatment facilities for traumatic brain injuries.

-The right of National Guard and Reserve personnel called to active service to receive the same benefits as active duty veterans.

-The right of disabled veterans to receive both their military retirement and VA compensation.

-The right of wounded Reserve troops to be treated like their active duty counterparts until their claims have been processed.

-The right of wounded veterans and those who have served in combat theaters to a comprehensive GI bill that provides full tuition, books, fees, and living expenses at any institution to which the veteran is accepted.

National Security

-Increase defense spending to six percent of GDP.

-Build new planes, new armed vehicles, new robotic land and air vehicles, new ships all right here in America.

-Recruit and train thousands of new troops and bring our National Guard and Reserves back home. We must increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps by about 92,000 troops within two to three years without lowering enlistment standards.

-Improve the nation's aging infrastructure (roads, bridges, water systems, sewer systems, etc.).

-Active-duty forces should not be used for nation building. We must return to our policy of using other government agencies to build schools, hospitals, roads, sewage treatment plants, water filtration systems, electrical facilities, and legal and banking systems.

-If we are required to undertake a large invasion we must use overwhelming force.

-[The GWOT] -- The Commander-in-Chief has an obligation to clearly communicate to the American people the nature of the war we are fighting, especially the goal of the jihadists: to kill every last one of us, destroy civilization as we know it, and to establish a theocratic caliphate without national borders.

-[The GWOT] -- The United States' biggest challenge in the Arab and Muslim worlds is the lack of a viable moderate alternative to radicalism. Although we cannot export democracy we should nurture moderate forces that present an alternative to the jihadists.

-[The GWOT] -- The goal in the Arab and Muslim worlds will be to calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy. We must not act too hastily but we must act. Specifically, we can help by aiding or promoting basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, and fair court systems within these areas.

-[The GWOT] -- We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil if we are going to defeat jihadism.

-[The GWOT] -- We must strengthen both our human intelligence resources and our military assets in order to eliminate the current threat.

-[Iraq] -- We should not withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq any faster than General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, recommends. Troops must be brought home based on the conditions on the ground, not on artificial timetables.

-[The Kurds] -- We must encourage Turkey to continue to improve life for its Kurds, and we must encourage the Turkish Kurds to address their grievances through the political process, including through the 20 deputies currently representing them in parliament.

-[The Kurds] -- We should be willing to provide the Turks with actionable intelligence to go after the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) with limited air strikes and commando raids. A even better method would be to train and equip Iraqi Kurds to fight the PKK and rid themselves of this menace.

-[Iran] -- The military option for dealing with Iran should not be taken off the table.

-[Iran] -- Iran is a nation that has to be contained, just as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. In order to contain Iran, it is essential to win in Iraq. We cannot allow Iran to push its theocracy into Iraq and then expand it further west.

-[Iran] -- We must be as aggressive diplomatically as we have been militarily since 9/11. We must intensify our diplomatic efforts with China, India, Russia, South Korea, and European states and persuade them to put more economic pressure on Iran.

-[Iran] -- Despite the protestations of Congressional Democrats, we should support and continue President Bush's new sanctions against Iran, his decision to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, and the classifications of al Quds force as a supporter of terrorism. We must also encourage our state and private pension funds to divest themselves of Iran-related assets.

-[Iran] -- Despite the protestations of Russia, we should move forward with the current plan to set up ten missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic to protect Europe from Iranian missiles.

-[Iran] -- We should reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran but only after the Iranians have made concessions that serve to create a less hostile relationship.

-[Iran] -- Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. However, a range of incentives (e.g., trade and economic assistance, full diplomatic relations, and security guarantees) should be offered before moving forward with military action. Before we put our troops at risk in Iran, we should exhaust all diplomatic and economic options.

-[Pakistan] -- On September 12, 2001, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed to sever his relationship with the Taliban and let us fight al Qaeda inside Pakistan. But distracted by Iraq, we have since allowed him to go back on his word. We should pressure him to remain firm in his commitment to us.

-[Pakistan] -- Because the next attack on the U.S. will have been planned in Pakistan, we must go after al Qaeda's safe havens in that country. The threat of an attack on us is far graver than the risk that a quick and limited strike against al Qaeda would bring extremists to power in Pakistan.

-[Pakistan] -- Musharraf has spent far more energy and enthusiasm sidelining the moderate Pakistani forces (like former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif) than he has in going after religious extremists and terrorists. We must have a "Pakistan policy" rather than just a "Musharraf policy."

-[Pakistan] -- We must use our friendly ties with India to encourage and help it improve its relationship with Pakistan and to push for increased trade and cooperation between the two countries, all to bring greater stability to the South Asian region.

Originally posted at www.maidensong.wordpress.com

If ever there was evidence needed to prove that the GOP finds itself in a place where its message lacks resonance with with the American voting public, it was provided by the stunning special election upsets that have taken place in recent weeks in traditionally Republican strongholds. The Republican losses appear to be a disturbing precursor of things to come.

These losses set the House and Senate Republicans atwitter as they came to realize that there was no longer any seat that could be considered a 'safe seat,' and started the main stream liberal media buzzing happily about the coming Democratic apocalypse.

What no one seems to be talking about however, is HOW the dems are winning in these GOP strongholds. They are doing it by running as far to the right as they can, without actually being a Repubican conservative. If this trend continues, and if elected officials actually follow through on the platforms on which they run, a Democratic 'majority' may not be the liberal nightmare we see coming down the pike after all. That caucus may in fact be a party potentially divided against itself, with senators and congressmen ripe for crossover picking.

This does not mean that Republicans shouldn't fight agressively to retain or win seats in the fall. It does mean, however, that Americans in general may not suffer as much 'damage' as they might, if a Democratic majority in congress was more liberal than conservative.

The congressional Blue Dogs are increasing in numbers, and continue to flex their clout, (as they have demonstrated already at least once this session, see link beow)

http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=90894

Their presence in congress, along with that of Republicans who have rediscovered their conservative roots, may be enough to stymie much of the liberal tax and spend agenda that the Pelosi coalition might try to push through.

On a recent MSNBC Sunday morning round table analysis, Harold Ford Jr. (D) observed that there was a 'lesson to be learned' by Democrats from the southern special election upsets. "Democrats cannot run liberal campaigns" he said. Republican panelists in on the discussion, including former presidential candidate governor Mike Huckabee, pointed out the dangers that would be inherant in running against conservative Democrats, including the possible backlash caused by attempting to smear them generically as 'liberal' if they are known within the community as being pro-life, pro-gun and otherwise 'conservative' by the layman's standards. Republicans are going to have to run as conservatives, and not 'against 'liberals' if they want to be successful.

The one good thing about the leftist extremism being discovered this primary cycle, scary as it is,..is that it is forcing the true Democratic base to find their moderate center identity again. More and more on pro Hillary blogs, I'm seeing Barack Obama labled Marxist/Socialist. Many who were swept up in Move On sympathy for Bill, have realized just how far left of center their party has veered, and are determined to win it back; even if that means electing John McCain.

This website is about being forward thinking and creatively agressive about the next direction that the Right needs to take. As events unfolded this primary season, it became more and more obvious to me at least, that the survival of the right, seems tied to its ability to be the dominant partner of the 'conservative Middle'. This is why John McCain and Mike Huckabee with their almost populist appeal, were the last men standing on the right. The great irony of Obama's campaign, is that he's running as the great unifier, when every indication is that his idea of unity, is everybody taking two steps to the left. Not going to happen.

But the people do want change...so where does that leave us? I'm going to make a stretch and argue that McCain/Moderate conservative VP is going to hold the whitehouse, because Obama will not be able to find his way to the center again if the opposition research and 527s have their way. But I think the dems are going to crush the GOP in the congressional races.

Watch for the make up of the majority though. The Democrats if they are smart, will run Blue Dogs in conservative districts, and they will be our ace in the hole on the really big bills. (I hope!)

If a 'moderate' president McCain has a largely 'moderate' congress to work with, it is to be hoped that 'moderately more' progress can be made in Washington that we have seen in recent years.

Maybe the Next Right... is the Middle.

Thoughts?