Redstate

but I think we're going to need a new "contract".

Newt's Contract for America was brilliant in that it put the candidates on record for what they would ultimately be forced to do should they actually be elected. I think another Contract is where Newt could be most effective now.

A new contract that included real earmark/spending reform, ethics legislation, and term limits (that actually get imposed this time) would go a long way to clearing this up.

Congress' problems won't be fixed by a presidential candidate. I fear, however, that it might be the triple minority party's 2010 platform that actually addresses this issue.

Mike Pence is that ideal candidate. It may be too late for 2008... but stranger things have happened.

Indiana got hit hard in November 06 but in 08 there are many conservatives emerging here who can help Pence.

I am sorry if this is not on the topic, exactly, but everyone should see this.....it is the ideal and perfect response to a "bring them home now" advocate (Sen. Harkin).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RRZWs4G3-4

If this link is not correct, visit http://mickelson.libsyn.com/ and scroll to Monday, July 23

Back on topic, the ideal candidate for me will have a strong sense of where he wants not just the country, but the government to go from here. I cannot believe there is a massive movement, such as "divided we fail.org" that wants our government to provide our health care for us. THIS current government! That for a large part runs on a bribery system!

There is a reason that congress's approval ratings are lower than Bush's. I am HOPING for a movement to change all this....but we may have to suffer a crisis first since we seem to have so many people who want to be dependent on government.

Recent examples of genuine reformers running bold campaigns against the old order: (and winning big)

Koizumi in Japan.

Sarkozy in France.

Sarah Palin in Alaska.

Notice all are right wingers. Left wingers cannot be reformers because they always stand for more bureaucracy and regulation.... exactly the things that need to be reformed.

Any Republican Congressman who supports Pork (i.e. Flake amendments)needs to have a conservative challenger in the primary.

I await the people telling me this is why I should support Ron Paul, btw.

Ideas? Ideas for Our Times: "I want that all people should have more good things and free health care and world peace without global warming." That's a platform sure to catch on with the masses!

You see, I agree with Karl Rove that the GOP lost in 2006 more because of corruption than Iraq.

If the Republican Party is going to get to Square One in order to work in this age of instantaneous media and Chuck Schumer-sponsored 'independent' impact lawsuit people like Melanie Sloan and C.R.E.W., there cannot be any doubt in anyone's mind which party has more responsible people working for it and which party's people are cleaner than Thou.

We have to be that party. It's a tough row to hoe, but that's what we have to be. And we also have to get back to our traditional role of being absolute pit-bulls on spending. We've lost both of those principles and because of those two failures we lost the 2006 election.

The next time Melanie says anything about a Republican on CNN, I want to see someone stick figurative fork in her forehead and knock her right to the floor. That means that this party has to do it better and cleaner than the Donks do.

It's not a fair game: Republicans will *always* be held to a higher standard than Democrats, and there's just no whining about it, and there's no getting around it.

My ideal Republican candidate would be a 21st Century of Teddy Roosevelt.

A man* who experienced life. A man who could communicate his views. A man who could push for real reforms and not minor reforms over minor transgressions(no one will remember the GOP transgressions of last year, next year). A man who can truly lead, who can inspire the non-partisans to follow him.

IMO, the Republicans have lost their way. I disagree with you that Iraq was tangential to the 2006 loss for you guys. It was central to it. Not just because people were fed up with Iraq. Just as critical was that Republicans can't figure out what they want to be. Of course y'all want to be be strong on security and foreign policy. But nation building really doesn't suit Republican principles. It goes against the very nature of liberty and self-reliance.

What the Republicans need is someone who will lead them out of the mess that is Iraq without withdrawing, at least without overtly withdrawing. Talking about cleaning up Washington will do nothing. No one really cares that much about that. They have become so cynical about it that they take corruption for granted. In my home town the reformer Democrats always talk about kicking the bums out(ie the incumbent Democrats) but it very rarely works. A large percentage of the people actually want to bring back the REALLY corrupt guys because they thought they got things done.

It is going to take an incredibly strong personality who can provide a vision for the future that is palatable to both Republicans and Independents. A very tall order but you never know.

I do apologize for assigning beliefs to all of you. I am generally against doing that. But this is what I see based on the past few years of talking to Republicans.

* - Certainly a woman could do the same but I really didn't feel like writing a man or woman several times.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Not to sound like a Rudy bot or however they have been named, but the law and order issue is one of his biggest strengths, so with this issue being so large, I've been at a loss that he has not made it a large part of his talking points. He does talk about spending but not about how that spending and pork is finding it's way back into the pockets of politicians.

Someone who is willing to take on corruption and has the credentials to do so, would immediately I believe pick up a fair portion of the electorate that is disgusted with how our officials conduct business.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

But I do disagree with one thing: "no matter who we put up in 2008, we're more likely than not toast."

Giuliani has led Ds in more polls than he has trailed. And this is while the R brand is not worth much. Even a minor uptick in the R brand would put him ahead by a sizable margin (more than the 3 points that Bush won by).

I'm guessing he's not your "ideal" candidate, but it does strike a bit of a blow to your major assumption.

If I thought you assumption was correct, then a Goldwater-esque campaign could be a very good thing for the Rs. But if the choice is between a likely winner who disagrees with you on some major things or a Goldwater-esque loss, that choice may be more difficult.

______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana

For me, it's all about credibility. That's where Iraq and corruption meet. The current administration just can't be believed anymore, about anything, on any front. Unfortunately, none of the current candidates have yet to inspire me this way. There is still time and, hey, I really have no where else to go. So, Dark Horse Candidates, pay attention.

The only possible saving grace for 2008 is that the Democratic congress is inspiring even less credibility. Leadership. No. Reform. No. Fiscal responsibility. No. The list is seemingly endless. Their focus is backward, not forward. They know nothing of compromise and bipartisanship. They are focused on the current administration when most of America, Republican and Democrat alike, have already given up on it and moved forward. If they continue this path, they will continue to fragment their party and disillusion their voters. In this way, I disagree with Erik. The Republican party still has a chance in 2008.

This leads to another point. Given the fragmentation and disillusionment in both parties, 2008 may be a year in which the VICE presidential candidates play an unusually important role. The party with the broadest support for their TICKET will have an advantage. For Republicans, that means a ticket that excites moderates as well as the strictest conservatives.

One ideal candidate? No, we need two.

corruption or fiscal spending are really the big problems. If these were really the prime issues, why did Democrats win in '06? I don't think Americans are that stupid.

I think we lost because Republicans were out of control. Enough loopy decisions got made that Americans thought divided government would serve them best. Now here I agree that defending felons in Congress contributed to that feeling, as well as the Bridge to Nowhere and other such junk.

The key reform needed is to convince the public that the Republican brand is something they want again. IMO, that has less to do with individual congressmen, and more with a public platform. One that's a little more developed than "Fight the terrorists!" and "Save the unborn!". Great issues, but we have the votes we're going to get from them.

A candidate with good ideas and the ability to lead the party is one to watch. I agree we're still looking.

I'm with Whitfox on this one. There's PLENTY of corruption to go around and I would say that the Dems are much worse than us in that respect. The problem as I see it is that the Dems are so much better at getting out their message than the Republicans. After all, they OWN the MSM: lock, stock, and barrel. Sure, Fox News and talk radio are making in-roads but a good chunk of the people who bother to vote are still the ones who get their news from the "big 3" and their local franchise of the NYT.

Tom Delay got hung out to dry over a fruitless accusation while at the same time William Jefferson managed to GET RE-ELECTED. Ray "school bus" Nagin plays the "blame everything on Bush card" and HE got re-elected too. This all reminds me of a certain mayor who got re-elected after getting caught WITH COCAINE. Talk about double-standards.

I do agree with the solution though. We need BOLD, FEARLESS LEADERSHIP. Someone who's not afraid to pull punches. Someone who's not afraid to tell it like it is. The reason the Dems have raised more money that the Republicans (so far) is because we're tired of the same-old, same-old "new tone" and RINO crap the RNC is dishing out. We're speaking with our wallets and the RNC is feeling it. Will they do something about it? We shall see.

I think the American electorate is currently experiencing some buyer's remorse. Congressional approval ratings are at their LOWEST - lower than Bush's, and this needs to be capitalized on. The libs are in control in Congress and they can't get anything productive done. No one (except their kook base) really wants what they're selling. Does America REALLY want to make it worse by electing a socialist Dem.? I certainly hope not.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

We did get swept out by Iraq and the call for change the war brought. I don't think the US people were saying "pull out right now", but lifelong conservatives like my mother are now anti-war (moderately so). Candidates in Maryland like Ehrlich and Steele (they had high approvals BTW) got caught up in the wave of the Bush induced fatigue.

I certainly agree that it wasn't the war that led to the Republican defeat in 2006. First, exit polls showed the war came in a distant second or third to corruption. Second, in Connecticut, the only significant difference between the two main candidates in the general election was their position on the war. And the antiwar candidate lost in one of the most liberal states in the union. Thirdly, a lot of the Dems that took Republican seats did not run on an antiwar position.

Unfortunately, however, the media and liberals have sold the meme that the election was all about the war, and the momentum has increasingly shifted in that direction. So regardless of what happened in 2006, the unpopularity of the war is a growing problem for Republicans.

But is the answer really an internal purge? Other than those who are corrupt (hang 'em high), who is going to decide where the cutoff point is going to be for earmarks and pork? And what evidence do you present that people will flock to a new pork reduced party? It would be nice, but I'm not sure there is much evidence that the strategy works. Look a Robert Byrd. Do you think that the New Squeaky Clean Republican Party can turn Mr. Pork out of office? The answer is easy -- not a snowball's chance...

Let me be clear. I'm all for fiscal discipline and transparency and I think we should be pushing that hard. But developing a hit list around pork strikes me as a risky approach.

I also don't share your pessimism about Republican chances in 2008. There are worrisome signs in fund raising, but in the polls we have two candidates in striking distance of the Democrats in the Presidential race. That's the critical one IMO because the next President will most likely appoint more USSC justices and determine the outcome of the GWOT. And the Democrats are overreaching like mad. They may ironically be our greatest asset in 2008.

Although this may not be well received here, my preference for a purge if you want to have one would be Hegel and Graham. You might not like that, but I know there are plenty of Republicans who would be a lot more excited about the party if those two weren't a part of it. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with pork or corruption.

Regardless of our differences I appreciated your article and found it very thought provoking.

I don't think you can count Connecticut as an example that the nation did not in large part vote on the issue of the war because the simple fact is the Lieberman was very popular among indeps and Republicans rallied behind him. But I do agree with everyone that corruption was probably the deciding factor in many races. I think war was the catalyst and corruption was the death blow. Finally, I don't think everyone here realizes how the perception of the immigration debate really hurt the Republican Party. 2/1 Hispanic vote for Democrats in 2006 caused 1 Republican in Texas to lose AFTER election.

P.S. - For the leader bit I am surprising you say you need a rabid leader that will get the message out because that is what you have had since Newt.

I think we do need to challenge the porkers, but I don't think the answer is asking the presidential candidates to involve themselves in supporting insurrections. It's not in their interests. And until one of them secures the nomination (February at the earliest), they are going to be focused on gathering delegates. Supporting intra-party challenges is a bridge too far.

In contrast, the blogosphere is exactly the right place to identify, encourage, and support the right kind of candidates. If Doolittle and Jerry Lewis need challengers, let Red Staters and other like-minded people help find those challengers and give them a soapbox. We need to help out in Gilmore versus Davis in Virginia (assuming Warner retires), and support a non-RINO to succeed Lahood, but we also need to help with "out of the box" candidates for Democratic incumbents who are perceived as safe. Lautenberg, Harkin, and Durbin are less than stellar candidates. And Bush is not on the ticket in 2008. This is not going to be a referendum on the incumbents or the Bush Administration. Where in 2006, we had no chance to defeat third-raters like Stabenow and Menendez, in 2008 we will.

The right kind of fresh face, outsider challenge might be able to pull an upset. This is something that the party establishment is really poor at doing. Remember when Mike Ditka was considering a run for the Senate in 2004? The Democrats were scared, and rightly so. I think Durbin would be pretty scared of a Ditka in 08. There has to be a really impressive female entrepreneur in Iowa or war hero in Montana or a renowned scientist or athlete in New Jersey.

Support for strong conservatives in solid GOP districts? Definitely. But let's also help shake some of the races where the odds against us are long, but not impossible.

But such candidates are few and far between. Too many Republicans believe as the Bushbots do, that any challenge to a Republican is grounds for being sent to Gulag.

I think people are ready for another push at term limits, if nothing else to limit the damage of corruption. Of course the second Republicans take control on the issue, they will start trying to protect incumbency.

I agree with Dougie Fresh. I think term limits for Senators and Representatives would be a very good thing. I know most of us haven't been too excited about the choices available. My vote is going to Mike Huckabee. I'm keeping with my tradition of not voting for somebody in the Washington establishment. So holding onto hope.

Shane Vander Hart
Check out my blog - Caffeinated Thoughts.

Rudy Giuliani is the ONLY candidate who has actually had to lead a government, make personnel cuts, lower taxes, decide on budgets, hire managers, tell the NY Times to jump off a cliff. He campaigned all over the country in 2004 for all kinds of GOP candidates.

Can any other GOP candidate say that? Answer: no.

Maybe someone can refresh my memory but where was Fred Thompson on the campaign trail when the GOP was getting pummeled back in 04? I saw Rudy campaigning in PA and MD for congressional candidates- but no Fred. Then again, I actually want to vote for a leader- and not just someone who can read a speech. Rudy is the only one who will cut and cut and cut some more. Oh well..

United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com

I don't care who the nominee is, but I think the key to victory is for the Republicans to come up with some good, sound policy ideas that they can speak to at length. The Demos have not been very strong in the substance department the last few years and need to be called on the carpet for it.

As others have stated, the Repubs should unite on some key issues, such as: term limits, tax reform (not just cuts, but real reform like the Fair Tax or something), an aggressive prosecution of the war, a greater commitment to federalism and some serious ideas for reforming entitlements.

I truly think the Repubs need to back off the social issues in '08. Everytime the libs try to steer the conversation that way, it should be answered with a discussion of the qualities the candidates look for in a supreme court justice and the proper role of the courts under the constitution and left at that. As for non-presidential GOP candidates, they should remind voters that those issues, while important to many, are not the most crucial facing the country at this time and the conversation needs to go back to concrete ideas on issues like the ones I have mentioned above. The Demos need to be forced to make a substantive argument and offer some clear ideas.

In addition to that, every withdraw from Iraq candidate needs to be asked point blank if they think our soldiers are being defeated by the jihadists and insurgents. Only a clueless fool would answer yes and, if someone is that foolish, I think there are many strong rebuttals to that argument. Once that question has been asked, the one to follow needs to be, "If you agree that our military is not being defeated by the insurgents and the jihadists, then why do you want them to retreat/withdraw?" It should also be pointed out, everytime the opportunity presents itself, that one of the main goals of the jihadists is to drive us out of the region. Every day that we remain in the region is a defeat for them. Why withdraw and give them a victory that they have not earned? There are so many ways to fight back and embarras the anti-war candidates, but Repub candidates must exist who are willing to make the argument.

I know this is not a good time to post such nonsense...but am just about beyond my limit. Is there any need to even vote anymore...just what does it accomplish anyway! Just elect the scoundrel of your choice!

Where are the Churchill types, please, do I have to listen to all the kreepy nonsense that the Repubican and Democrat leaders spout. Where are the leaders of the FREE world! Bunch of creepy politicians.

We have no leaders today... Period! The chances of electing someone of substance is nil... The media (oh our wonderful left leaning media) is destroying our democracy at such a slow pace that it is not noticed by the few remaining hawks...

Ah geez, can't we all just get along... I give up, the world is too much of a mess to save...

Yes, I give up on both Republicans and Democrats (well, never would vote for Democrats anyway) - all are a bunch of @#$holes... My thoughts exactly... Seems that all parties are just as corrupt as everyone else...

I intend to withdraw into my family and ignore the world...at least I won't be disappointed again...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."