GOP

As grassroots,  online conservatives with a voice, we've got to do all we can to keep the GA Senate seat as a firewall to prevent a run-away liberal, Democrat Congress and Obama Presidency. 

I'm a graduate student in the Midwest, but I've decided to give $5 a week to do my small part.  I'm also making calls to friends I've got that live in GA.  We've all got to pitch in to do our part to keep this seat.  Make calls, donate money, give your time.  This is our chance to restart and rebuild by electing Saxby.

Saxby.org to donate and volunteer to elect Saxby Chambliss and keep this firewall seat.

Crossposted at NextGenGOP.com.

A few hours ago, I received an e-mail from a Ron Paul supporter, and although the majority of the e-mail was rather condescending, the author makes an important statement that I do believe merits exploration:

You guys [at NextGenGOP] are … ignoring Ron Paul … and his contribution to gathering sincere and dedicated enthusiasm in American politics.

Indeed, the author is correct – our contributors have not really discussed the Ron Paul Revolution, despite the fact that there are a number of crucial lessons for the Republican Party to learn from his successes. Thus, without further ado, I will take this post to thoroughly explore this matter.

To his credit, Ron Paul’s campaign demonstrated that Republicans can indeed keep up with Democrats in the era of Web 2.0, particularly in the areas of grassroots organization and fundraising. In addition, his campaign won the hearts of many young voters in a way quite similar to that of President-elect Obama. This begs two critical questions: how did Ron Paul manage to accomplish these significant feats despite being widely regarded as a “fringe candidate,” and more importantly, what lessons must the Republican Party take from his success?

Ron Paul’s Successes

Let us begin by looking at the many successes of the Paul campaign, and how his performance compares to that of the two most significant candidates of the cycle: John McCain and Barack Obama.

1. Ron Paul energized his supporters, resulting in an incredible outpouring of enthusiasm for his candidacy despite being supported by an extremely small percentage of voters. McCain’s campaign created a short burst of energy during his selection of Sarah Palin and the convention, but it proceeded to fizzle out as time passed. Obama’s campaign continuously energized its supporters, resulting in unbelievably massive crowds at his campaign events. A Gallup poll from October 2008 confirms this phenomenon, clearly indicating the enthusiasm gap that Democrats had over Republicans.
2. Ron Paul effectively used the Internet to organize his grassroots efforts. Relying on existing infrastructures like Meetup.com – where he was able to recruit over 86,600 members in 1,150 groups that planned and held over 51,000 offline campaign events – the Paul campaign had enormous success in this arena. McCain’s website had its own network called McCainSpace, but at many levels it was not especially groundbreaking, and in contrast to the online outreach by Obama and Paul, it seemed to be used fairly lightly by supporters. In contrast, Barack Obama successfully built an incredible network at my.barackobama.com by bringing on Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. Ask almost any Obama supporter, and they’ll tell you that they used Obama’s online tools in one way or another. What’s unique about Ron Paul’s success, however, is that his campaign didn’t spend enormous resources building its own tools. Instead, it successfully took advantage of tools that already existed and thus was able to build an incredibly comprehensive national grassroots network without having to spend a significant amount of its own money.
3. Ron Paul’s ability to raise funds online is unparalleled in the Republican Party. Indeed, for the final quarter of 2007, Ron Paul outraised all of the other Republican Presidential candidates. McCain’s fundraising was generally unexceptional, and his strategic error in choosing to take public funding will almost certainly never happen again. And of course, we all know that Obama was a fundraising juggernaut, particularly online.
4. Ron Paul strongly appealed to young voters. Exit polls for early primary states like NH, MI, SC, and FL show that a disproportionately large percentage of younger voters pulled the lever for Ron Paul (in many cases, roughly twice the percentage of votes he received from other age groups). As we know from the exit polling of the general election, these young voters overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama over John McCain: CNN pegs Obama’s advantage at 66% - 32%.

How Ron Paul’s Successes Came to Fruition

At the most basic level, it was Ron Paul’s common-sense and decidedly libertarian platform that created so much interest in his campaign. While some of his positions, such as his staunch opposition to the Iraq war, stand in stark contrast to the Republican agenda, the fact is that the core of his message is quite in line with the traditional Republican message: reducing the federal government’s size and cutting its spending.

What made Ron Paul distinct, however, was his passion and commitment to accomplishing this. If you had to identify the single most important policy issue in a hypothetical Paul administration, it would unquestionably be reduction of government. Unfortunately, you cannot unequivocally say the same about any of the other Republican candidates, and certainly not of John McCain (read: McCain-Feingold, among other things).

Ron Paul’s steadfast and unwavering commitment to his limited government principles brought a huge influx of dedicated supporters to his campaign. The resulting enthusiasm among these supporters translated into impeccable successes.

Lessons for the Republican Party

1. Democrats aren’t the only ones who can fully take advantage of the Internet, both in donations and in building a grassroots organization. Indeed, you don’t even necessarily need to build new tools to win the battle online. That said, in order to see Ron Paul-like success, there are two crucial components that must exist. First, you must have enthusiastic supporters who are not only willing but excited to help the organization. Second, you must be willing to allow online tools to step into areas that have traditionally been controlled internally, such as grassroots organization.
2. We cannot underestimate the importance of our ideals of smaller, less expensive government – and our candidates’ commitment to these ideals. To paraphrase a McCain stump line, Republicans were elected due to their promises to change Washington, but instead they let Washington change them. As a result, the voters turned to Democrats in 2006 and 2008, at least in part because they simply don’t trust us to keep our word. In 2010 and beyond, we need to run candidates who have a proven commitment to these principles – perhaps signing off on a Contract with America 2.0 similar to what I’ve previously suggested – and in doing so we will generate an incredible amount of enthusiasm for our candidates.
3. Successfully using the Internet saves money. A lot of money. Of the major Presidential candidates, Ron Paul’s campaign devoted by far the smallest percentage of its budget to paying staffers. One of the most important reasons for this is simple: by successfully using the Internet to build the grassroots backbone of the campaign, there was considerably less need to pay staffers to organize outreach efforts. Yes, the sheer notion of such a decentralized campaign may be unsettling to those who are used to running traditional campaigns. However, Web 2.0 is shaking up the foundations of many traditional infrastructures with resounding success. If we want to survive in this new era, we need to allow it to shake up our organizations, too. Just imagine if John McCain had been able to slash his campaign’s payrolls by just 15% due to such decentralization – in fiscal year 2007 alone (well before McCain was the presumptive nominee), McCain would have been able to save $2.3 million.
4. Republicans can win back the younger voting bloc. My experience has been that the vast majority of my peers – voters age 18-29 – fundamentally agree that they want the government in their lives as little as possible. The Republican Party is the party of individual freedoms and liberties, and if we can manage to resecure the public’s faith in this, we can win back young voters.

The bottom line is that we simply cannot afford to discount Ron Paul as a “fringe candidate” whose successes hold no lessons of value for the Republican Party. Instead, we must to adapt these successes into the new Republican Party. Viva la revolución!

1.  In order to get votes should the GOP allow the bashing of Judea-Christian Red, Yellow, Black and White Men and Women Conservative non church going and church going: Bible Readers, Bible Believing, Bible Carrying, Gun Owning, Game Hunter, Beer Drinking, Soda Drinking, High Class, Low Class, Middle Class, Rich, Poor and Always Helping Others, Loving Country, and Giving Thanks to GOD, American Patriots? 

2.  There are Two Forces at work in the world; Should our GOP leaders have us follow the GOD of Israel, or, the Slick and Cunning Followers and their leader Lucifer?

3.  Good vs Evil.  Evil people will do good in order to deceive people into believing a lie.  Good people always do good but sometimes some of them will believe a lie.  Sometimes good people do bad after being deceived and believing a lie.  Just remember that good people are never evil they are only deceived.

Our Declaration of Independence, our Judea-Christian America Is Still Travailing.  Red, Yellow, Black and White We Are Precious Patriots in His Sight, Jesus Loves the Children of the World.

The key to a new and refresed GOP needs to be based in conservative-libertarian beliefs.  The new young face of the GOP will:

1.Be against high taxes, especially income, property, capital gains, and estate taxes.  Not because we hate poor people, or want children to die in the streets for lack of healthcare.  We want to avoid confiscatory taxes because we believe the government essentially wastes money.  We know what the government is gauranteed to deliver, a project that turns out to cost a lot more and take much longer than predicted.

2. We disagree with abortion because we think life is precious.  However we wouldnt advocate banning abortion or jailing doctors of young women who had them.  We simply dont want policy on this subject, or any subject for that matter, dictated from DC.  Lets face it in todays America that most restrictive states at most would ban abortion in all cases except those or rape incest and in the case where the mother is in danger.  And states like that would be the exception, most would simply install common sense laws such as parental notification, bans on atrocious partial birth abotion, and maybe waiting periods.  The main point however is that the people of the states get to decide, not beaucrats in washington, not 9 men in black robes, the people. 

3.  We want to have a strong national defense but we abhour wars that kill young american men and women and kill innocent civilians in the countries where we fight.  If we were more energy indepdent at home, we wouldnt need to ensure the stability of the middle east as much as we do now.  While we would want to ensure that the region didnt become a safe haven for extremism, we would not need to ensure that conditions existed for a consistent supply of oil.  By drilling with environmentally responsilble techniques, researching shale oil extraction technology, taking more advantage of offshore drilling, tap the vast wasteland that is ANWR, and finally go full steam ahead with nuclear power plants.  Replace all domestic electricity with nuclear energy and use fossil fuels for everything else, this would be a great goal. 

4. We dont hate the earth.  The "right" has constantly been smeared as anti environment, as a party that puts large corporate interests ahead of fresh air and clean water.  Bull.  Just because we think Al Gore is snake oil salesmen doesnt mean we want to condemn our children to live in an ozoneless wasteland.  We understand the scientific method and how it works, and therefore that there is ZERO PROOF that global warming is manmade.  We shouldnt condemn ourselves to sky high electric bills and gas prices in an attempt to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels.  See point three above for energy independence plan.

5.  This of course is simply the ranting of one person who supports the GOP.  I dont support them because I think they are right all of the time or even most of the time.  I support them because they are the party that in the past has shown themselves to be able to put into action conservative small goverment policies.  It is the party of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Regan, William F. Buckley, and many other greats.  We are taking very large steps toward socialism.  Things are going to get worse, but remember its always darkest before the dawn.  People say that out of Obama there will be the next Reagan.  I think this optimism is good, however I would prefer to think that out of Obama there will be a president who can accomplish some real change.  Abolish the Department of Education, disban the IRS, permanently ban bans on domestic drilling, return america to a responsible financial policies.  After an Obama administration there will be much opprotunity for the GOP, a new more in touch, invigorated base must be ready to charge ahead with bold new ideas. 

I've given my take the latest Palin controversy here and here, and outside of that I'm done. I make it a rule not put too much faith in "unnamed sources" (especially when one of the people rumoured to be an "unnamed source" publicly says it's all a bunch of jive), and if you want to believe things that the Governor of Alaska who trades regularly with Canada doesn't know what NAFTA is...whatever. The question now is what does Sarah Palin do next?

To answer that I look to the great philosopher Keigergard, or maybe it was Glenn Frey, who simply said, "Take it Easy." She's scheduled to speak in February at the big Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington D.C. Until then...I wouldn't do a damn thing. Relax. Welcome your grandchild into the world. Enjoy Christmas. Enjoy the New Year. Get back to being Governor. There's really no need to think aboot 2012...especially when there's still 2010 to worry aboot.

<!--more-->

Then, after a few months rest, and after a speech at CPAC that you know is going to bring the house down, it's all a matter of introducing people to Sarah Palin. I say "introduce" as opposed to "re-introduce" because the woman that America has met over the past two months wasn't Sarah Palin as much as it was John McCain's running mate. The job of the V.P. is to do nothing else but advocate for the Presidential candidate, essentially just throw out chunks of red meat to the crowds and stand behind McCain saying, "Yeah, what he said." Palin has her own narrative yet to tell, and to stand on her own record.

An example of this would be the economy. All this talk aboot how bad the economy is...Sarah Palin was the only one running this year that had any economic background whatsoever. As Governor of Alaska she oversees 20,000+ employees and an operating budget of $11 Billion, which $11 Billion more than the operating budgets Obama, Biden, and McCain ran combined. Warren Buffet, life long Dem and a guy who knows a thing or two aboot making money, is a huge fan of hers from their business dealings. Prior to joining the McCain ticket she was interviewed on the business channels all the time, so while MSNBC was calling her an idiot and a Jesus freak, CNBC was saying what a great pick she was.

There were a lot of serious people who saw something special prior to September 1st. The rest of the country needs to meet that Sarah Palin. Boning up on issues I'm not that concerned aboot. When you have cats like Randy Scheunemann (foreign policy), Larry Kudlow (economic policy), and if he's not planning a run himself, Newt Gingrich (domestic policy) all as supporters, there's nothing that can't be learned. And as for energy policy which she's an expert at herself, I seem to recall a certain President-Elect saying that energy independence was going to be a top priority of his first year in office.

The best part is that the people she has to make the case to, the moderates and independents, stopped paying attention Wednesday morning. The right is in the love. The left will hate her no matter what. The middle she needs to impress has gone back to fantasy football. By the time September of 2012 rolls around, they'll see an entirely different candidate. And who's to say she's even going to run in 2012. She's only forty-four years old. If she finishes a second term as Governor she'll still only be fifty, younger than most people who run for President. There's even the chance of Senator, especially if/when current Senator Ted Stevens is expelled from his seat. The main reason everyone's talking aboot 2012 is because, now that 2008 is over, what else are we going to talk aboot?

Sarah Palin has a bright future a head of her, and while it might not be in the next four years, I can't imagine it not being in national politics. There was something else going out there besides "appealing to the base," and even if you believe that the 20,000+ crowds she was drawing were all die-hard Republicans, anyone who doesn't think she can build off of that simply wasn't paying attention.

Okay, echoing off davidfarrar's "Next Step For The Next Right", I'd like to start the ball rolling for action to rearrange the House GOP leadership. I don't mind John Boehner, and I think he was strong during the bailout pandemonium, but I want to push for someone a little more charismatic and media savvy, someone who's a thinking conservative with fresh ideas, especially on healthcare. I think we'd all agree that healthcare is going to be a big battle in the next few years.

So, to the sausage-making details:

-- Do we know when/if the House GOP will vote on their next set of leadership?

-- Can we pressure them into reorganizing, and is there a way to a get a representative-by-representative count of their votes in the case of said election?

-- Any ideas for who we could push?

My first vote would be for John Shadegg, my second for Mike Pence.

This entry is cross-posted at NextGenGOP.com.

Today, the question at the forefront of the minds of Republicans seems to be, "How can the Republican Party get back on the right track?" The path to a GOP resurgence after a devastating four years is not an easy one. Ordinary folks are disgusted with President Bush, and despite Democratic control of the Congress, most of the blame has been pinned on Republicans.

Worse, there is no clear Republican message. While the Democratic Party has unified around Barack Obama’s message of “hope” and “change,” there is simply no unified message present in the Republican Party. How will we be different than Democrats? What does the Republican Party stand for? Why should you elect us instead of them? Unfortunately, these questions have gone unanswered, and with the current negative perceptions of the Republican Party, Democrats are poised to win unprecedented control of the federal government.

As a result, the Republican Party is desperately in need of reform if it ever wants to regain its rightful place as the majority party in this country. We are not talking about a few simple policy shifts, but rather sweeping reforms that remake the entire image of the Republican Party. Specifically, there are three steps that we need to take if we want to recover from these difficult times: establishing a clear message, increasing the effectiveness of our use of new media, and establishing a RightRoots movement.

Establishing a Clear Message

Establishing our message is perhaps the most crucial step for a GOP resurgence. In 1994, our message of the “Contract with America” propelled us to incredible electoral victory. This concept is so powerful because it allows us to include many “sub-messages” (such as cutting taxes, reducing government, and protecting national security) within a single comprehensive message: the Contract. Going forward, we need a Contract version “2.0″ that guarantees to deliver and restore the values shared by the vast majority of Americans. Specifically, this Contract 2.0 should promise the following (in no particular order):

1. The Republican Party will not stand for corruption at any level. Elected officials who are even accused of corruption (read: Ted Stevens) will be publicly lambasted by the Party’s leadership and will be immediately asked to resign. Dirty politicians are not and will never be welcome in the Republican Party.
2. The Republican Party is the party of free markets. We will fight to make it easier and more affordable for ordinary folks like Joe the Plumber to start their own businesses and succeed. Additionally, we will ensure that federal regulation of our industries is minimized as much as possible.
3. Our judges and justices have no business legislating from the bench. Extremist judges who impose their views from the bench are a danger to society as we know it. The Republican Party will only support highly qualified judicial nominees who will not legislate from the bench.
4. The Republican Party promises to work to reduce the tax burden on all Americans, regardless of income. We will never stand for a tax increase for any American. Additionally, we promise to fight tooth and nail against any form of socialist income redistribution.
5. We promise to reduce the size and spending of the federal government. In addition, we will vote against any bill that includes unnecessary “pork-barrel” spending, and we will publicly distance ourselves from any elected official who attempts to procure such “pork-barrel” money.
6. This country faces the gravest threats it has ever seen. We will take any and all necessary action to defend this great country, and we will not relent until every single terrorist has been brought to justice. Finally, we will not, under any circumstances, meet without precondition with our enemies, such as Iran or Venezuela.

Increasing the Effectiveness of Our Use of New Media

I have been privileged to have the opportunity to speak about New Media at a number of conferences – most recently, I spoke on a panel at Americans for Prosperity’s 2008 Defending the American Dream Summit on “The State of the Conservative Movement Online.” I began my thoughts on this panel by making a very important observation: Barack Obama was the first candidate in U.S. history to win a Presidential nomination almost entirely through the use of new media.

I have been reading the book Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (which I highly recommend as a read for anyone). The basic premise of the book is that Web 2.0 has created a new age, an “Age of Participation.” This Age of Participation is facilitated by “peer production,” “which describes what happens when masses of people … collaborate openly to drive innovation and growth.” Following this line of thinking, Barack Obama’s website fuels participation and collaboration, while John McCain’s primarily serves to provide information and educate.

For example, Obama’s social networks allows you to see a breakdown of all of your friends: how many calls they’ve made, how much money they’ve donated, and so forth. From there, you can send your friends a message encouraging them to donate more or make more calls. This level of person-to-person collaboration has never been seen before in politics.

If we want to win, we need to gain the upper hand online. To do this, we need to engage people online at the same level that Barack Obama does.

Establishing a RightRoots Movement

Jon Henke, John Hawkins, Patrick Ruffini, and many others have commented on the necessity of constructing a RightRoots Movement, along with how we can accomplish doing this. These brilliant folks have managed to cover many of the points I would normally discuss. However, there is one point that I would like to contribute to the discussion. Above, I talk about the differences between Obama and McCain’s website: namely, that Obama’s promotes peer production but McCain’s does not. The same is true of the Right vs. the Left: the Left successfully established a collaborative “LeftRoots” movement long ago, while to this day nothing of the sort exists for the Right.

Does this translate into electoral failures? You better believe it. In building a RightRoots Movement, the authors of Wikinomics put it best: “We must collaborate or perish.”

Conclusion

The current state of the Republican Party is a sad one. It has lost its identity, its message, and in turn, its electoral prominence. The GOP needs new ideas, new messages, and new leaders if it wishes to return to the “Grand Old” days. I believe that the core values of the Republican Party are much more in line with the core values of the average American than the values of the Democratic Party. And I think that the GOP can have its resurgence sooner rather than later. And because of this, I for one am a firm believer that our best days lie ahead, not behind.

     A simple phrase that was pounded into my head in business school is “Hope is not a Strategy.”  With a week left in the 2008 Presidential Election I find myself wondering how the Republican Party comes to find itself on the verge of losing significant amounts of national power.  Regardless of your political views you can’t evade the realization that Republicans have been demonized to a level not seen since the early 1970s when the country was in the grips of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.  This demonization has resulted in significant political momentum for the Democrats and has motivated many normally absent from our political process to become involved.  Regardless of the outcome of the election next week one thing should be abundantly clear to all conservatives.  We need a new strategy for 2012, 2016 and 2020.  It may sound a bit crazy to some to plan that far in advance but to not do so makes hope our strategy and that is a scary proposition.

     Above and beyond everything else we need a new breed of conservative leadership.  Our party must change or we will be doomed to fail as the world changes around us.  To ignore this change makes about as much sense as pretending that the world is flat despite all evidence to the contrary.  Gone are the days where lack of military service, lack of legislative experience, extensive drug use, multiple divorces or protesting against a war precludes a man or woman from becoming the President of the United States.  Gone are the days where a conservative candidate can be ignorant of the concepts of information technology, the use of the internet, macroeconomics, social justice and the perception of inequality in the distribution of wealth in this country.  America tires of wealthy old men who fought heroically in a forgotten war who are seen as doing the bidding of other wealthy old men.

     We need a batch of fresh conservative leaders who not only espouse traditional values like strong defense, belief in God, limited government, punishment of criminals and the responsibility of citizens to help themselves but also clearly understand the basic needs of the majority of Americans regardless of their political affiliation.  Unfortunately you can’t manufacture leaders so you have to identify them early and mentor them until they are ready for candidacy on a national basis.  These leaders need to be chosen based on their leadership qualities, conservative viewpoint and ability to connect with people in that order.

     Our party needs to create a short-list of potential leaders for the 2012, 2016 and 2020 elections to ensure that we have at least two viable candidates for the primary.  We then need to assess the current state of the economy (inflation, unemployment and position in the cyclical performance cycle), the state of world affairs (wars, unrest, threats), the current attitude of the people (happy, worried, disenfranchised) and current social issues (education, entitlement programs, crime).  Once these issues are analyzed we need to present the candidate that best speaks to the people on the issues that are likely to be prevalent during the two years of campaigning prior to the election.  Once the campaign is underway the candidate needs to maximize his or her use of the latest technology in order to get a repeatable and cohesive message comprised of multiple value propositions out to the public.  Think of it this way, in 2004 YouTube didn’t exist but only one candidate in 2008 has embraced the use of this and other IT tools completely while the other simple tried to jump a train that had already left the station.  Of course creating a strategy is much easier than executing it which requires strong GOP leadership at the national level.

The Republican Party faces three primary threats that need to be addressed: 

1. A lack of fresh leadership that Americans can connect with
2.  A lack of a long-term candidate development program that thinks three elections ahead and learns from the past three elections (call it the 24 year cycle)
3. A lack of a macro-level national strategy that embraces changes in our culture, current issues, regardless if we like them or not, that connect with people on issues that impact them directly and are not seen as abstract possibilities

If we fail to do these things we will be failing our country and dooming it to a trajectory that will take us dangerously close to socialism.

 Last night my wife asked me a question: What's with the House Republicans? Aren't they a Wall Street party? Why aren't they doing along with the deal?

Which led me to do some thinking: Are the Democrats now the Wall Street party? Given the level of political donations, and the similarity in thinking (government subsidies, and regulation, which contrary to popular opinion, is a favorite activity of big finance), Wall Street and the Democrats are a natural match.

Which also led me to dig out a good book I read on Stephen Harper and the rise of the conservatives in Canada. It's a couple of years old, but well worth the read (Right Side Up, by Paul Wells, 2006).

There was a fascinating passage in it, which is probably obvious to most readers of this website, but hit me. It's a lengthy quote, but bear with it, as it's worth it.

Quote:

What was the alternative? [i.e. as Harper was trying to put together a conservative coalition] A mostly economic conservatism "a modern Canadian version of the Thatcher-Reagan phenomenon." The basis of Reform's message should be the private-sector urban middle-class, and the core of its message should be free markets and low taxes. The  party should "tailor its broader, 'social' agenda to gain a sizeable chunk of the urban working class and rural sector 'swing' vote, without alienating its urban private sector middle-class 'core.' The key is to emphasize moderate, conservative social values consistent with the traditional family, the market economy, and patriotism."

...The second interesting thing is Harper's insight into the nature of that core audience. Flanagan, paraphrasing Harper, says it would be stitched together from "those parts of the urban middle class, urban working class, and rural population that can agree on an agenda of market economics and traditional values." Compared to traditional conservatism, this version would be substantially down-market. (emphasis mine.)

"The older model of a conservative party based largely on the middle and upper classes is no longer viable," Flanagan writes, "because so much of the urban middle class (for example, teachers, nurses, social workers, public-sector administrators) is now part of the 'new class,' or 'knowledge class,' as it is sometimes called, and is thus a political class dependent on tax-supported government programs. Political coalitions now divide less along class lines than on the question of public-sector dependence."

All in all, an interesting take to me, though probably old hat to many on this site. And one that sheds a little light on where the GOP in this country should try going.

...But to a great extent the ends of his political action are already visible here: to build a broad coalition aimed not at swells, fat cats, and less-affluent voters who nonetheless depend on assorted grants and subsidies, but at a lunch-bucket crowd of cabbies, skilled tradesmen, young families, and modest entrepreneurs.

Thanks for having this website.

Tim Wright

Republican incumbents in close races have the easiest vote of their lives coming up this week: No on the Bush-Pelosi Wall Street bailout.

God Himself couldn't have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the Administration. That's why I want to see 40 Republican No votes in the Senate, and 150+ in the House. If a bailout is to pass, let it be with Democratic votes. Let this be the political establishment (Bush Republicans in the White House + Democrats in Congress) saddling the taxpayers with hundreds of billions in debt (more than the Iraq War, conjured up in a single weekend, and enabled by Pelosi, btw), while principled Republicans say "No" and go to the country with a stinging indictment of the majority in Congress. 

This creates pressure on the "change" message. If this issue is made controversial, and Obama is not the first to make it an issue, how exactly is a Washington deal backed by  Bush's Treasury Secretary "change?"

But for this to be actionable, it has to be controversial. So this can't be a few lonely voices like Coburn and DeMint. It needs to be the bulk of the Republican conference. In an ideal world, McCain opposes this because of all the Democratic add-ons and shows up to vote Nay while Obama punts.

History has shown us that "inevitable" "emergency"  legislation like the Patriot Act or Sarbanes-Oxley is never more popular than on the day it is passed -- and this isn't all that popular to begin with. All the upside comes with voting against it.

A bailout may be inevitable, but so to can be the political benefit for Congressional Republicans if played correctly.