Redstate

that the GOP would stray so far off from what was so obvious a reason for them being in power.
I feel like we were closer limiting goverment in 1994 to 1997 than we were these past 8 years. It goes to show that no matter who we elect we must hold thier feet to the fire and if they show anything less than what at least promised to work for we must get them out. The primaries must now become the battlefield in which we win our principles and not wait until the general elections and get stuck with "We are better than the Dems".
The right people are out there and we must convince them to run and if they win we will not aloow our chance to govern to slip away as we did with the great class of 944.

"It ain't over till it's over"
Yoggi Berra

We have to remember that America's composition changes everyday. Imagine all the WWII veterans who voted for Ronald Reagan, who are not here today. All the people who lived through the Depression, who are not here today. Those were voters with the same experience as former Democrat, Ronald Reagan, and who like Reagan, understood that a good living beats hard times. They understood the power of America to overcome its problems, given the proper motivation. Reagan was the motivation. Reagan inspired Grandpas and Grandmas all over America to teach their grandchildren, again, what America is all about. America didn’t start with Elvis or the Beatles, and there was an America before LSD and crack cocaine--an America that went to church. Question: Are there enough people today, who understand the message of Ronald Reagan, and can teach it? We'll see. It's time for the grandchildren, who learned from Grandpa and Grandma, to step up.

In my opinion, Americans like the idea of limited government. Americans want low taxes, less government spending (especially on pork projects)and less government intrusion into their private lives (bedroom and family issues).

Everyone's going to say "Republicans need to be more like me" as the solution to the party's problems; Sen. Specter did the same thing.

What's undoubtedly true is that there are now (well, as of 1-3-07) fewer moderates serving in Congress from your party to assert that part of the argument.

Your use of quotation marks around the word “seismic” implies you feel the results Tuesday didn’t matter or were of little import.

We lost the house. We lost the senate. The president became a lame wounded duck. Some pundits have tried to reassure us that historically Tuesday wasn’t really that bad as compared to past losses by presidents in their sixth year.

Let’s put it in historical perspective. Democratic rule in the house lasted forty years before it crumbled. Ours lasted but a dozen or so years. Remove the quotation marks.

We need to return to the basics. Themes of smaller government. Realist foreign policy. Morals. And hope the critical mass of center right voters who sent us packing are forgiving.

We can't run on 1980 or 1994 issues. It's a new world with new, complex issues and we have to respond to that.
The basis appeal, of course, should remain: low taxes, relatively smaller government, strong defense. But our candidates have to branch out beyond those issues to attract voters who weren't even born when RR got elected.

It's a center-right country, not a right country. If we run as if it were, we'll win the South and nothing else. Huge chunks of the electorate are already gone; the Northeast(where I live), West Coast, most of the upper Midwest. Colorado and Arizona are changing. Perhaps Ohio as well. That's a lot of votes to take off the table.

We have to be a party of the 21st century, not the 20th.

A wise man once said, the cost of the federal government is not the cost of your favorite program, it's the cost of everyone else's favorite programs.

And, studies prove that regardless of party, the longer anyone stays in Washington, the bigger a spender they become. The answer, unfortunately, term limits, was killed by the Supreme Court and will require Consitutional Amendments to change. Fat chance of that ever happening, and, in this age of sophisticated gerrymandering (but, not sophisticated enough to save the GOP last Tuesday), we're going to be stuck with big-spending incumbents, unless we clean house, and that brings me back to point 1.

Anyway, if Republican "leaders" think the answer to our woes is to be Dem-lite, well, we tried that for much of the 40 years before 1994, and it wasn't too successful.

The country is center-right, and we need to reclaim that space. The Iraq war is unpopular now, and we clearly need to change the debate there. And, we did have a problem with ethics among our party, and we didn't do enough to stamp those out. Another problem with complaceny in power. Yet, the answer is a good does of Reaganism. We have won most of the major economic battles. No Democrat in his right mind would dare raise taxes to pre-Reagan levels. Even Bill Clinton tried to moderate his tax increases, and kept taxes relatively low. On social issues, legislatively, we have moved right-ward in 12 years. Unfortunately, our Courts continue to steady march to the Left. This will be the tragedy of this election, perhaps a further entrenchment of the left-wing agenda in the judiciary.

But, we must return to our roots, and we may need to learn a lesson from Bill Clinton, and figure out how to moderate those principles so that they will 1)not scare voters, and 2)turn into legislation that can get passed.

My problem with the last two years of the GOP Congress wasn't so much that they didn't pass legislation that I liked, it's that they didn't even try. One of the lessons I have learned from the last 12 years is that absent a landslide victory from a presidential election, without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we can not over-reach. If we are to move the country further right (once we're back in power), it is going to need to be done incrementally.

Thank you for your time.

The Liberal's definition of torture: Anything that provides useful information from the enemy

took place at the "victory party" for the DE GOP on tuesday. It took place when, for the first time in at least 5 election cycles that Mike Castle won with under 60% of the vote (he got 59%). Last year he won with 69%. By saying the Party needs to return to discuss issues such as lobbying, the environment, energy and education, I felt that he was really kicking the DE GOP leadership in the pants for their lackluster year.

I helped run a State Senate race here in northern Delaware, where the environment, energy, and education were the top three issues (we won!).

Lobbying, and creating legislation that would allow the Attorney General to prosecute public officials for wrongdoings was a major issue in the Attorney General's race, which Joseph Biden III (Son of US Senator Biden) won- creating a potential Biden Dynasty in Delaware.

The DE GOP, even in this bad year, could've won something- instead they lost accross the board. I felt Mike Castle was rightly telling them what they need to focus on if we're ever to have success in Delaware again.

Also, for Mike Castle as a centrist- he is on social issues like stem cell research, but on fiscal issues I believe he would be right there to work towards cutting spending and "righting the ship" in the eyes of the average American (reducing the deficit).

As bad as we did nationwide, we did even worse in the Northeast.

Can any of you point to any good news for Republicans from New England, New York, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania or New Jersey?

No! It's all horrible, horrible news.

Yes, we need to keep the hardcore conservative and libertarian voters in the south and west.

But up North, we MUST do something drastic. Our "rugged individualism" product just ain't selling to your typical Northeastern female demographic who cares very little for ideology and just wants to go shopping, watch Sex in the City, find affordable health care for her kid, and have good schools.

Time to Oprah Winfrey-ize our Republican Party; more fluff, more superficial, more celebrity. That also means taking a giant leap towards the Center, at least in the Northeast.

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

for mainstream conservative fiscal issues, if that is what they believe in.

I never have seen Castle, Chafee argue for less government and lower taxes.

Mike Pence is the man to bring us out of the darkness. He will once again talk about the "shining city on the hill." How we need to rein in the Federal Government and promote lower government spending, etc.

When Democrats try to assail him as trying to starve children, kill old people, etc. He will stand up to them and force them to argue their point -- or lack their of.

Democrats ran on nothing except we can do better than Republicans and stand up to Bush. Well, after 2 years of endless investigations, nothing done to eliminate the marriage penalty, renew the child tax credit, bring back the death tax, they will eliminate the tax cut on capital gains, inflation will go up, housing will slide -- people will see that Democrats have no agenda except make the people dependent on government.

MIKE PENCE will stand up to that BS and talk about the real AMERICAN DREAM that Democrats are trying to destroy. We need to back him up and preach the message and get back on track!

The one thing all conservatives agree on is the importance of lower taxes--the lower the better. However, I think we can all agree that lowering taxes does not alone good government make. In fact, we conservatives need authentically to reconcile the "Government is the problem" faction with the "small Government" faction if we ever hope to have a consistent approach to governing.

So while we can in general be of good cheer that a significant majority of voters would, all things being equal, prefer a reduced role for government at every level. Nevertheless, we must recognize that beyond a reduced tax burden there are government services that genunine conservatives truly value. What makes this challenging is that, apart from National defense, there is no ready-made consensus regarding the make up of those services. Katrina and the poor response (which is my view is ongoing) underlines a genuine gap regarding the expections for a long-term, consistent conservative governing philosophy.

Much has been said, and will continue to be said, that conservatives achieved the politically easy part of our agenda over the last 12 years--namely, cutting taxes. What we need to do our homework on now, I would submit, is figuring out how to achieve the more challenging aspect of agenda: reducing the size and roll of government is as undisruptive and effective manner as is humanly possible. Americans want smaller government, but they will react against a sudden "shock therapy" approach.

I must say I was terribly shocked to read Tom Delay quoted barely a year ago in the Washington Times:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget..."Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."

I in no way doubt former Congressman Delay's sincerity in these comments. Remember: these remarks were made after the drug benefit had been passed. I see this attitude as an indication that conservatives from leadership on down have simply not done our homework in the area of bringing our vision of smaller government to fruition; and in particular bridging the gap between our vision and the challenges of governing.

For my money, this project is what we must complete during our time in the wilderness so that we can build on our authentic successes in delivering genuine value to the American people in 2008 and beyond.

----------------------------------------
As soon as men decide all means are permitted to fight an evil, their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil they would destroy.

-- C. Dawson

That is why we are so stupid. Our so-called leaders make ridiculous remarks like this. They say it, we drink it.

Do as you say and say as you do.