Redstate

.

most important one of all...a workable immigration policy or a plan to implement the one we have.

This has heavy impact on everything you listed except the one on technology.

And voting for Republicans, and not sitting out to "teach a lesson", is important as well.

Am I the only one who, in reading Dick Armey's WSJ editorials, wants him to take up a significant role for us in the '08 elections?

These are great planks of a governing platform but they will not lead to victory. The way to BEAT the democrats is to drive a wedge between the mainstream and the radicals of their party.

The issues that would do this are:

National security (although the democrat candidates seem to be tacking to the middle, taking away the issue)

Radical secularism (the right to practice your religion in public; and further bans on "gay marriage")

Affirmative action (quotas)

Unrestricted abortion on demand.

The democrats have to pander to the far left to win their nominatons and campaign contributions but that means they loose the vast majority of voters.

The MSM will attack the GOP as "mean spirited" if they bring these up but I would not mind seeing this group smoked out for who they are, not a representative sample of American values.

people uncertain of how much impact illegal immigration can have on budgets I offer this from Arizona Prop 200 campaign.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030929-123102-5626r.htm

"The states welfare program has ballooned from $200 million in fiscal 2001 to $1.2 billion in fiscal 2002."

The part that is not mentioned is the fact that some who used to be covered are no longer covered. That coverage was transferred to illegal immigrants. To those who can still get coverage in times of need (say a dibilitating illness) get less coverage.

The interesting thing is that even though the prop passed, no major politician backed the bill (including McCain)because the latino vote is so strong it's considered political suicide.

Arizona's bill is in the Federal Courts. California's bill was declared unconstitutional to illegal immigrants.  

I love my party.  But some of the issues that Armey brings up are just short sighted.

For example:

1.  Spending is what he lists first.  What is the specific proposal?  Many of us would love a spending freeze, or a real cut in spending.  What has been proposed thus far by our lawmakers is cuts "in the increase" of spending.  Sounds too Clintonian to me.  Want to cozy up to the voters?  Cuts, freeze, and/or the elimination of departments.
   
2.  Tax reform?  Armey doesn't impress here either.  Jigger with a broken system here and there, instead of fixing the system it's self.  Flat tax, fair tax, sales tax, I don't care as long as we get it done.  The excuse is always "let's see what we can do this year".  This year I want real reform, not more of the same old same old.
   
3.  SS reform.  Been there, done that.  Our president lost a lot of capital trying to push this, and the GOP congress let him down.  Hearing a congressman say "Let's pass a law so I won't get my hands on your SS money" sounds a little ridiculous.  Get rid of it, or privatize it.  Don't fight our president and then act like you were for it all along.
   
4.  Tort reform.  The second half of this states specifics, but only relating to asbestos.  What specific tort reform does Armey have in mind for everything else "tortish"?
   
5.  New technologies.  This is the job of the private sector, not the government.  Keep your hands off (ie "no more laws / taxes" that affect technology).
   
6.  Health care.  Great.  We just saw the biggest new entitlement spending program under you guys.  and you want us to trust you with more?

Armey has no idea how to write a real contract with America.  He can do better than this if he wants to inspire.

Remember the "real" contract? Remember reading each of the points and thinking, "My God, how things can change!"  Remember staying up and watching the unbeliveable happen as the results came in and the barbarians at the gates stormed into DC and took over the congress?  This just doesn't sound anywhere near as ambitious.

Armey's a good man.  But he isn't thinking big enough.  Just my opinion.

You're saying if you've got a "Republican" RINO in office, who supports NOT ONE of the six agenda items above -- it's a good idea to support that person, because somehow that'll help you get the agenda -- which said RINO opposes -- enacted?  That's BizzaroWorld Logic.

Back here on planet earth, non-support of the RINO has several possible outcomes.  Worst case, you replace the RINO (who supports none of the six items) with a Dem (who supports none of the six items).  Most likely case: RINO is re-elected but perhaps chastened enough not to BLOCK the agenda.

I prefer an honest enemy to a dishonest "friend".

While a lot of attention has (rightly) been paid to national security and the economy over the past few years, I can't help but feel that social issues have gotten the short shrift as a result.  To that end, I'd like to see the following addressed:

1. The revival of a Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.  Polls have consistently shown that voters are overwhelmingly against gay marriage, and several states have passed their own bans.  Let's make this the nationwide issue it should be.
   
2. Extending broadcast decency standards to cable TV and satellite radio.
   
3. Reforming sex education classes to emphasize abstinence.
   
4. Allowing intelligent design to be taught along with evolution.
   
5. Last, but certainly not least, we should aim for a nationwide ban on abortion by 2010.  We're just one Supreme Court opening away from making this a reality.

Not that I particularly want to encourage anyone to vote Republican, but even really bad Republicans keep Congress under GOP leadership.  I prefer to not think of all Republicans as enemies, anyway, and quite frankly, I like moderates on both sides of the aisle.  But hey, if you like Nancy Pelosi, I say you punish all non-conforming Republicans for their disloyalty :-).  'Twould make my election night party much, much better than 2004.

you noted "(including McCain)".  That should be ESPECIALLY MCCAIN.  John John did everything he could to defeat Prop 200.

And you can chalk that up to one more reason why I will never, ever vote for McCain for any national office.

I read Armey's editorial and thought to myself, wow, here is what politics might look like in a world without wedge issus to froth people to the polls.  Apparently you noted the absence as well, with differing results.  Imagine a political world where our leaders agreed to leave the Kulturkampf Gotterdammerung alone for just one Congress, and focused exclusively on the things which will most impact this country for the next century.  Sigh.

Pushing Bush's Social Security reform, which Armey suggests, is a losing battle. The polls still support what we learned in 2005, most Americans either don't care about social security reform or are for the status quo.  And the thing is that most Democrats are more than willing to stand up for 'preserving Social Security'.

If the Republicans make this a major issue for this november, they can gurantee themselves a defeat.

Dem candidates can tack to the middle on national security all they want.  They will NEVER be credible to majority of Americans on this issue.

Note that they are tacking to middle on matters of faith.  Or at least they think they are.   They go out and find far left denominational folk who hand them really twisted Scriptural references for Democratic approaches to policy.

That won't work either.

Because those issues are MUCH more important to the future of our country.  With the grudging exception of abortion, the other issues you mention are absolute fluff compared to the real challenges this country faces in the 21st Century.

I like Armey's approach.  Don't agree with much, but these are good issues to address.  I certainly support spending restraint, although I would extend that into tax reform as well.  "Tax relief" makes realistic budgets rather difficult, particularly the relief on dead people.  Why is it more unjust to tax the income people receive from deceased benefactors more than to tax income from sweat of their own brow?

Social security needs to be addressed.  Not a fan of the most recent Republican suggestions, but the conversation needs to continue.  Tort reform is a red herring.  Couple it with insurance reform, or even better, general healthcare reform, and we can deal.  Armey does so, at least to some extent.

Yes indeed, I wish sincerely this was the national conversation.  Alas, judging by the posts so far, it is not.

Extending broadcast decency standards to cable TV and satellite radio.

 What is the justification for applying any standard to a subscriber based medium where people have a choice about what they will pay to watch or listen to?

 It would be more sensible asking for increased pressure on cable/satellite broadcasters to offer ala-cart programming. As it is you could lodge a complaint that you can only buy packages of channels some of which may combine programming you want with programming you don't. But it's still your option to not buy any of it, as opposed to network television, which comes as it is to every television.

 But even then you're asking for the government to interfere with business and consumer choice. Any time you ask government to interfere, you're acknowleding that it's ok for them to interfere even when they do so in a way you don't like, as long as some majority elected them. A dangerous proposition. Instead, consider adopting a position of demanding an end to government interference in general, and leave the rest to personal responsibility.

I'm just not sure how.

The revival of a Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.  Polls have consistently shown that voters are overwhelmingly against gay marriage, and several states have passed their own bans.  Let's make this the nationwide issue it should be.

This will burn up valuable political capital and be a losing issue.  It will not get through the Senate.  It's nothing more that a redux of the Equal Rights Amendment, only on our side.  It's a winnable in virtually every state, win it there.

Extending broadcast decency standards to cable TV and satellite radio.

Don't subscribe.  This is an issue that has NO natural constituancy.  Conservatives should be fighting to get the federal government to stop being our nanny.  It's not OK for my retirement or my healthcare and it's not OK for my TV either.

Reforming sex education classes to emphasize abstinence.

Allowing intelligent design to be taught along with evolution.

The biggest problem with education in the US is federal involvement.  Rather than continuing to micromanage a broken system with stuff that the majority of Americans don't give a rip about, why not spend our effort in reducing or eliminating the DOE.  Although since Bush seems to want to be the "Education President" that's a stretch.  Work for vouchers and to support home schooling.  They will make a REAL difference.  Your issues just make for a fight that has no winners.

Last, but certainly not least, we should aim for a nationwide ban on abortion by 2010.  We're just one Supreme Court opening away from making this a reality.

I am ardenly pro-life.  I am also ardently pro-Constitution.  Your law is equally as bad as Roe, it requires the SCOTUS to legislate a result that you approve of.  The only way to limit abortion is to work through the legislatures to do it.

Understand that overturning Roe will not outlaw abortion.  It will simply turn the issue back to the states to regulate.  If you want abortion outlawed on a national basis you've got three choices:

• Pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion.  Never happen, would never get through the Senate or the various State legislatures.
• Pass a federal law banning abortion.  Never happen, wound not get through the Senate.
• SCOTUS rules abortion is murder (or something like that).  Requires SCOTUS to act as legislature not judiciary.  BAD LAW.  BAD PRECEDENT.  And I seriously doubt if either Roberts or Alito could be counted on for that vote.  (I think they would likely vote to overturn Roe because it's bad law.)

It's important that we pick our fights.  Our priority should be a reduction in the size and the scope of the Federal Government.  Period.  Any program that extends the scope of the Fed should be rejected.

I happen to think that all of your points would be good to have.  Just very, very bad for the fed to be involved in.

taking away consumer choice. To allow consumers to purchase only the channels they want would be giving more choice.

 I think you misunderstood my position, as you appear to be echoing my advice re: ala carte programming...

you mean reduce spending. It does no good to privatise the jobs, but triple the spending. That does not really reduce the size of the government.

you're asking for the government to interfere with business and consumer choice."

 I'd rather see government not interfere at all and let the marketplace come to the conclusion that customers are best served by offering ala-carte programming options. Clearly at this point broadcasters must find that course of action to have more cons than pros, but I believe consumer demand will eventually make them change their mind - or competition will take advantage of the unmet demand.

 I did not mean to imply that government pressure on broadcasters would necessarily limit consumer choice. I simply don't want to see the government interfere with in anything best left between business and their customers - for any reason, including ones that I think are otherwise worthy causes.

 My wording wasn't clear, my apologies!

.

"I like peace and quiet," Armey had said, then blurted out, "and I don't need to listen to Barney Fag - Barney Frank haranguing in my ear."

Later that day Armey explained that his "Barney Fag" remark was an innocent slip and apologized for any unintended offense

If you do some research on Mr. Armey, I think you will find that, yes, you ARE the only one who wants him to take up a significant role for us in the '08 elections.

Perhaps not as a candidate... but his ideas are certainly the ones the GOP ought to embrace, and ought to be a significant part of the platform at the 2008 convention.

reduce the amount of money the Fed spends by reducing the amount of things the fed does.

I'm a 10th amendment hardliner.  I am perfectly willing to axe most of the fed starting with DOE, Energy Dept, NEA, Social Security, Dept of Commerce.  On Monday.  Tuesday, we'll close some more buildings.

And, BTW, I'd eliminate the regulations related to those agencies as well.

Do you have anything to contribute here? I'm just wondering if this is gonna go the usual song and dance route, or if you have anything to offer. Hope springs eternal and all that.

>>>>Do you have anything to contribute here?

Well, if you think promoting a candidate with a penchant for homophobic remarks in public is where the Republican party should place their bets, then knock yourself out. I happen to think it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Can I say that?

It looks like it could have been a slip of the tongue, or a sarcastic anti-gay remark.  Hard to tell, frankly.

I once called my former boss, Mr. Schmidt, "Mr. Shi*", completely by accident.  Slips of the tongue occur.

Do you know more examples?

Tax reform - making the system simpler, more incentive friendly - is a worthwhile cause (particularly close to my heart after working through my wife and my taxes this weekend).  But let's not confuse it with extending tax cuts.  

Health savings accounts, proposition 6, make the system more complicated.  If you want to keep the concept, I think we should at least be able to combine it with some of the many existing tax-advantaged savings vehicles.  

At a minimum, we should be able to clear up the AMT mess.

Tom

Insulting one liners on Your Very First Day may not be the wisest move.

Time alone will tell.

TRANSCRIPT

Hardball with Chris Matthews (9:00 PM ET) - CNBC

Wednesday May 1st 2002

.....MATTHEWS: Right, no. No, that's not the question and that's not your answer. The question here is: What is the future of the Palestinians who are fighting Israel right now? You say their future is somewhere besides Palestine. That runs in the way of US policy going back to 1948. It runs--it runs completely against the president's policy and every policy I've heard a president take, which is that Israel has to give up its settlements on the West Bank and give it back to the Arabs in exchange for peace. You say the deal should be the Palestinians leave?

Rep. ARMEY: That's right. Palestinians say the deal should be the Israel--that--that the Israelis leave.

MATTHEWS: Have you talked about this with the president?

Rep. ARMEY: I happened to believe that the Palestinians should leave.

MATTHEWS: Have you ever told George Bush, the president from your home state of Texas, that you think the Palestinians should get up and go and leave Palestine and that's the solution?

Rep. ARMEY: I'm probably telling him that right now. This is...

MATTHEWS: Have you thought this through?

Rep. ARMEY: I have thought this through. I've thought it through for a lot of years. I believe that Israel is the state for the Jewish people. It needs to be honored. It needs to be protected.

MATTHEWS: Yeah. That's not what you're saying. You're saying Israel should expand its borders to the Jordan River...

Rep. ARMEY: No.

MATTHEWS: ...and kick out all the Palestinians? That's what you just said.

Rep. ARMEY: I am--I am content to have Israel occupy that land that it now occupies and to have those people who have been aggressors against Israel retired to some other arena, and I would be happy to have them make a home. I would be happy to have all of these Arab nations that have been so hell bent to drive Israel out of the Middle East to get together, find some land and make a home for the Palestinians. I think it can be done.

MATTHEWS: So the president, who has been dutifully, for the last couple of weeks, trying to get the Israeli army to withdraw from the West Bank, should stop that, let the Israeli defense force take over the West Bank and hold it and make it part of Israel? You completely disagree with the president's policy then?

Rep. ARMEY: I am--I am perfectly content to have Israel hold and occupy the land that it has at this moment.

MATTHEWS: Well, how about though-how about the Jenin in Samaria? Tom Delay, whose measure you're putting on the floor tomorrow, says that all the West Bank, Jenin, Judea, Masada, everything belongs to Israel. It's not occupied territory. It's Israeli. Is that your position?

Rep. ARMEY: Well, first of all, Chris, I think we have to be real careful on how you are interpreting jo--Tom's provision. I think Tom's

provision is principally and primarily that the Jewish people have a right to defend themselves.

MATTHEWS: Well, just to repeat, you believe that the Palestinians who are now living on the West Bank should get out of there?

Rep. ARMEY: Yes.

I'm probably telling him that right now? Did he really say that on national TV?

Dick does much more than homophobia. I think he's off his rocker quite faggly...I mean Frankly...( I always get those two mixed up!). Material like this would not be something which would enhance his canidacy, IMHO.

Gotcha. Armey (1) made a verbal slip for which he apologized, and (2) embraces the Party platform of the Likud Party with respect to the borders of Israel. He is therefore a homophobe and, from what gathers from you, a racist.

Got it.

The over/under is 13 comments. I'm out of the decision making process on this one, folks. Who wants a piece of the action?

think it's his first day. The name Bobwill sounds familiar.

He doesn't have anything interesting to say.  Just wants to stir us up.

of Bob Wills and the Texas Gayboys... errr, Playboys. Sorry, I must me homophobic.

it is his first day. The comment history tells the tale.

in 4 posts.

We have some lovely parting gifts for our contestants. Tell him what he's won, Johnny!

RealAmerican is a moby, if my whale detector is working properly.  Don't waste your time on it.  Maybe one of the editors will get by here and throw the harpoon.

It only took one post.

Dang, I was really looking forward to that new toaster.

On the basis that the tribunal has reason to believe that the participant threw the match.

Blam.

And I think the 1994 Revolution came because Rs focused on these issues and did so in a way that made voters think "this is how politics should be."  I think Ds could capitalize just as much in 2006 if they broke through the politics as usual problem.  But if the recent D leadership is any indication, they are hoping to win the politics as usual match.  Hopefully (from my view), Rs will rise above this cycle and focus on important long-term issues rather than fight another gutter-level battle of "I had less pork than you."

They are already interfering in the marketplace by not allowing national feeds to be provided to households that are within a certain distance of a local affiliate. Then the content providers that own local stations can use that to extort large increases in payments for other, unrelated content. The stuff the sat/cable providers get away with is much worse than anything Microsoft ever did.

And take the cuts instead. An individual tax return is not hard to compile. Sure, something like a flat tax is easier to compute, but all the proposals I've seen will cost me more money. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to save myself a couple hours worth of work.

Not sure what you mean by the "more incentive friendly" part. Incentives such as deductions and credits add complexity to the tax code.

After all, I oppose gay marriage, and I don't think that society should take a neutral position between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

I just can't get over my prejudice, no matter how hard I try.

...would be a world without the democrats. The MSM...

but watch it with the name calling.

Instead of just dismissing my points, why not comment on what you agree or disagree with, as others have?  If you're capable of rising above Kos-like retorts, that is.

Let them try. My point is to continue to drive a wedge. You cannot simply place a wedge. You need to hammer on it. I would be sure that on the campaign trail and when in the media GOP candidates and party leaders should be sure to label the oppositon. Most of the school boards and city councils that attack religion are democrats. This needs to be brought up over and over. The ACLU is a democrat front organization.

"Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed."

Not true.

(You are, of course, welcome to disagree, and I'd be interested in why and how you think capital is prior to labor, and independent of it.)

http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=552&parent=63

This link will give you the full speech, which I recommend.

Here is a larger excerpt:

"By some it is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital -- that nobody labors, unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow, by the use of that capital, induces him to do it.... They further assume that whoever is once a hired laborer, is fatally fixed in that condition for life; and thence again that his condition is as bad as, or worse than that of a slave. This is the "mud-sill" theory.

But another class of reasoners hold the opinion that there is no such relation between capital and labor, as assumed; and that there is no such thing as a freeman being fatally fixed for life.... They hold that labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that, in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed -- that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor. Hence they hold that labor is the superior -- greatly the superior -- of capital."

Just add an end to illegal immigration to that and I say "Amen"!  

That is just how clueless Dick and his pals are.  That none of these issues were listed.  I'd rather see a democrat in there than Dick Armey.  His is what is wrong with the Republican Party.

I'll bet he's been here before and called himself something close, like bobwills.

is an excellent thinker. He has consistently and cogently promoted the flat tax. Armey identifies areas where change is possible, but remember that conservative House leadership and conservative members are constrained. They must drag along 'moderate Republicans,' deal with the outrageous behavior of House Democrats and fight MSM distortion every step of the way. And all of this must be conducted during a war, where homeland security is questionable (e.g. our open borders). To achieve even part of Armey's ideas without undermining the war would be real progress.

We should not make this an all or nothing proposition. Incrementalism on the left is how we got here, and we need to balance the desireable with the possible to maximize the advancement of conservative principles.

on the campaign stump is like A-Rod playing T-Ball.

...worth it's status on this list. Hey, some buy into it as an effective campaign issue, but we all know that it's relation to skyrocketing health care costs is overhyped compared to the real issues, which have to do with the corporate structure of many HMOs, along with pricing realities of the medical industry. Lawyer bashing might get us a few votes here and there, but actually solving a problem by addressing its real causes would be the brave, morale, and effective thing to do.

generals of all time.

Liddell Hart has a fantastic chapter on his achievements against the Goths and the Vandals in his book entitled "Strategy".

I don't suppose you're directly related?  :)

Pray tell, what issues that get attention now should be ignored instead?

Or should that be Bob 'n' Weave?

I dissected Real's comment above.  Point by point.  You guys whine about getting poked in the eye but won't attempt to rebut my dissection.

Since you've added a new point to Real's comment, I'll agree with your point.  Securing the borders is a federal constitutional responsibility and it's being ignored.  Since you are so hostile to Mr. Armey's points, how would you deal with immigration?  Fence?  Troops on the border?

And just how would you propose to enforce Real's initial points?  And what is your concept of a Constitutional basis for any of them.  Remember, if the fed is going to be involved they can't just do it because you want them to.  That's a liberal talking point.

I look forward to your response.

Rangemaster... "We're out of lawyers..."

It's still safer to hunt with Cheney than to go for a drive with Ted Kennedy.

that I know of no hereditary link to the great General. However, since I can trace my lineage back only as far as 1666, I can hope. :-)

I am an enthusiastic reader of Captain Liddell Hart. Strategy is a classic, as applicable today as it has been ever since it was published. I expect it to be profitably read far into the future.

If you enjoy Edward Gibbon, another interesting Belisarius description is provided in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Chapter 41. It is available at http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap41.htm

I have saved the text and will read it as soon as I can.  If only more of those around me recommended things like Gibbon to me...

I'm delighted that you admire Liddell Hart.  For those of you who haven't read him, his work, Strategy, is indeed classic, and a thrilling description of brilliant military moves over the last 2500 years.  It can be read in short pieces, too.

Here's a link for more information:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452010713/sr=8-2/qid=1139857435/ref=sr_1_
2/104-9615052-6376740?%5Fencoding=UTF8

There are only a bit more than 300,000,000 shot shells manufactured each year. We'll run out of ammo long before we run out of lawyers.

By incentive friendly, I mean leading to good incentives.  For example, most economists would favor taxing gasoline more and income less.

While a simpler tax code would increase the taxes some people pay (say large mortgage holders in high tax states), it would reduce the taxes others pay (say renters in low tax states).  The net effect could be set to zero easily enough.  And everyone would save a lot of time.

Tom

we know that Democrats will tax us to the never ending hades they want in their socialism society; and we know they will spend the taxes as fast as they can.  The RINOs are just pseudo socialists who want your money any way they can get it and pay off their district's voters with your money and good intentions who will not admit who they are; they need to consult the center (wind blowing direction) moderately winds are best.  Might as well be a "minority" in name and numbers and obstruct as best you can; the GOP knows how to be a "minority" but haven't yet figured out how to govern as a "majority".

it is just too bad there aren't any GOP men or women with the "iron will and intestinal fortitude to LEAD" the cats in the U.S. House and the goats in the Senate to make the policy ideas REALITY!  They seemingly will never figure it all out until it is too late!!!!!!!!  Maybe in January 2007, it will have sunk into their "weak minds and do nothing bodies".

I wouldn't have a problem eliminating all the individual credits and deductions in exchange for lower, but still progressive rates, but I'm not interested in a flat tax. A flat tax would have more of the effect of increasing the taxes some people pay (the middle class with W-2 income) while decreasing the taxes others pay (the wealthy and self employed).

As far as gas taxes go, I think we pay enough in gas taxes. I pay about $800 a year just in tax on gasoline.

The quote is from Lincoln.

Not true.

What source other than labor is there for capital?

Thanks -

That's actually a pretty good answer.

How is land turned into actual value?

Thanks -

Actually, I take that back.  My comment about being "turned into value" is probably not apt, the nature of capital is (I think) to be a store of potential value.  Land in its raw form may be, perhaps uniquely, a form of capital.

Thanks again -

Barter, and other arbitrary valuation systems.

Labor can have that effect, but labor doesn't mean much without the land to do it on.

Land is capital in itself, insofar as anything can be.

http://www.reason.com/0112/fe.rb.post.shtml