1) So long as it's in the opposition, where should the Republican Party focus its energy?
To be “in the opposition” is to allow someone else to define you by their actions and philosophy. The GOP should not stand “in opposition” but should follow its own principles and not swerve from those principles regardless of what a sitting US President – of either party - does. That’s my first quibble.
Quibble number two is that political philosophy should trump issues. Democrats love “issues” because “issues” prevent analysis of larger trends and political philosophies where Republicans dominate. For example it’s simple to look at the deaths of American soldiers and Marines and reach the conclusion that unilateral withdrawal is the answer without ever looking at the long-term effects of that decision and realizing that without a determined US foreign policy even more deaths and suffering will follow. The meaning of the Law of Unintended Consequences has always evaded Democrats on the journey to the exploitation of “issues.”
Now the areas where Republicans should focus should follow principles. Generally Republicans are on the side of “opportunity” which often brings them into opposition to those people who are more interested in “security,” but there is an issue where Republicans can attract those who are usually more interested in security. That issue is securing the US borders by the construction of a physical boundary and increased Border Agents.
The amount of nuclear material and the chances of some of that material entering the US in the form of a dirty bomb increases every day that we do not secure our borders and increase our inspections of international cargo.
The second issue is corruption. One of the keys to the 1994 Republican Congressional majority was the real and perceived corruption of the US House. In 2010, Republicans must make use of the under-reported Democrat scandals and the arrogance of both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The failed town hall meetings, the vote by the Senate Finance Committee to disallow a posting of the health care bill on the web 72 hours before the vote, the failure to reign in the slanderous rants of Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, the failure to remove Charlie Rangel from his powerful chairmanship (and for that matter, the apparent purposeful delaying of his Congressional investigation), the public statements deriding many of the American people by Nancy Pelosi, and the general contempt of Harry Reid all demonstrate an epidemic of arrogance that must be used. Then, Republicans need to be as ethical and as humble as possible or any advantage will be short-lived.
The third issue is energy independence. “Drill here, drill now” needs to be a mantra. In addition to pursuing alternative energy sources, nuclear power plants must be revisited in a common-sense way that allows safe, secure construction in a timely manner. Imagine a war between Israel and Iran and its allies. Now, imagine the cost of a barrel of oil after this war begins. That, I’m afraid is easier to imagine than a Middle East at peace and without sabre-rattling for the next 30 years while the current pursuit of alternative fuels plays out to a possible solution.
The final issue is health care. Contrary to liberal statements, the GOP has laid out possible solutions to bring about positive changes for health care: 1) The ability for companies to sell healthcare insurance nationwide which would make possible 2) truly portable healthcare insurance; 3) an inexpensive catastrophic healthcare insurance policy that would kick in only after $2 million in benefits over a lifetime (normal insurance should cover up to that point); 4 – reasonable tort reform; and, 5 – an insurance pool that would provide coverage for those people who are currently “uninsurable”. Another possible partial solution is to make medical training more affordable
By allowing nationwide health insurance coverage, insurance companies would have larger pools of insured clients allowing them to more accurately assess group risk and to write insurance policies that are less risky, so less profit margin is required to remain profitable because as a whole the groups’ results are more predictable. In addition, you would see “high-risk” policyholders get more affordable policies because some companies will be able to specialize in those areas and better predict losses – again due to larger groups and more feedback from the policyholders.
The catastrophic healthcare coverage was an idea years ago by the late US Senator Paul Coverdell (R-GA) and because it would be so unlikely to be used, premiums would be very low – probably less than $100 per year for a family of four. Two million dollars is an arbitrary amount, but that is the maximum lifetime payout for many health care policies.
Tort reform could simply consist of a panel of doctors and judges (special masters) to determine if an injury suffered was malpractice or was within the allowable risk for a patient. For example, if the patient is counseled that the removal of a brain tumor has a 25% chance of saving the patient’s life but causing permanent blindness and blindness results the doctor should not be sued unless it could be proven that the doctor did something to increase the odds that the surgery caused the blindness. If the doctor came to the operating room with a hangover, then that is a different matter and a lawsuit should happen.
One last thing, foreign policy will probably be an issue before 2012 and Republicans need to be ready to offer leadership solutions because President Obama’s administration is weak in that area and proving it more every day.
2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama's presidency?
The increase in the size and the spending of the federal government is of a great concern. We didn’t like it under President Bush and we don’t like four times that amount of an annual deficit under President Obama. The second part of the concern is that it appears obvious that President Obama knows as little about economic principles (and what makes people prosperous) as is humanly possible and has no intention of learning by theory or by practice.
3) There's been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?
Call me old-fashioned but I believe a good political debate is good for the nation. That’s why most Republicans opposed McCain-Feingold and other attempts to squelch free speech.
Does it help or hurt? It IS more complicated than that. I enjoy talk radio, but I don’t rely on it for facts, though it has proven to be much more accurate than the media elite gives it credit for. For example, does the fact that you failed to list Huffington Post as one of the websites you write for make you inaccurate? It’s certainly relevant to whether or not Republicans respond to your email and you left it off. So, do I ignore your request? No, I RESEARCH you further and find that I’m comfortable replying to you.
The bottom line is that MORE political debate is better than LESS. Any day, any way IF you have confidence in the American people and if you don’t then a Republic is not where you belong.
4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America -- with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonja Sottomayor's "wise Latina" comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?
Liberals recognize only two sins in America: racism and hypocrisy. I find that liberals usually fail to have concrete beliefs and fall into the “situational ethics” trap so they can’t be accused of hypocrisy. This leaves racism as the hammer with which they are most comfortable. You know, ask a carpenter to fix something and he will first reach for his hammer?
Race should not matter. Does racism still exist in America? Sadly, yes it does. Should we try to end it? Of course we should, but not at the price of freedom of speech.
As I stated earlier, the GOP must stick to principles and this includes freedom of speech AND equal opportunity. Who is more like me, the man who looks different but has the same values or the man who looks the same but hates the things I love? The man who has my values and loves the things I love is my brother. The man who would tear down that which I would build is my mortal enemy. It is about intent and belief, not appearance.
5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn't get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.
Republicans in my area want conservative leadership. I do not know a soul whose first choice for the 2008 GOP nomination was John McCain; this is not an exaggeration, I know of no one. He was suspect because he had no principles carved in stone. I believe Senator McCain loves his country. I believe he loves his family. I believe he loves the approving attention of the national media. I believe he does not have a coherent personal political philosophy.
To get conservative leadership, primaries need to be restricted solely to registered Republicans (minimum six months unless a new voter or recently moved) in all states where party affiliation must be declared.
Education is also an issue that gets ignored, probably because it is in such foul shape that no one wants to contemplate what it would take to repair it. There are a lot of good teachers caught in a poor system that forces them to be everything except teachers – and maybe Logic would be a good required course for middle school students, high school students and Congress.
Energy received a lot of attention, but as gas prices have declined that is no longer a focus. It needs to be a focus, because the decline in fuel prices is temporary. Where will the price of oil be if Israel and Iran begin a war?
6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?
I would say that the GOP has been a coalition of economic conservatives, social conservatives and libertarians. Social conservatives are not all religious and would include those whose primary concern is national security. That coalition is still viable.
7) Is there anything I didn't ask about that you'd like the media or the country as a whole to know?
I wish you had asked about where Conservatives obtain their facts, what are their personal political philosophies and how long have they been politically active.
Thanks and sorry for the delay,
Ken Carroll
Dodge County (GA) GOP Chairman
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
#26
1) So long as it's in the opposition, where should the Republican Party focus its energy?
Our first priority should be to stop his legislative agenda.
Second we should work to win as many seats as possible in2010.
2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama's presidency?
Without question the country has elected a marxist that hates capitalism and liberty.
3) There's been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?
These men are commentators on the news and ideas of the day just like news print journalist and Sunday talking heads. They have a different format and possibly are better at what they do than others. They do not hurt the right, I believe they help. They certainly are what the 1st amendment is about.
4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America -- with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonja Sottomayor's "wise Latina" comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?
It is not about race it is about ideology Justice Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Condi Rice, Micheal Steele, Alberto Gonzales and many others on the right are ignored or destroyed by the left but never celebrated.
5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn't get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.
No
6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?
It is viable. If you talk the talk walk the walk.
7) Is there anything I didn't ask about that you'd like the media or the country as a whole to know?
Liberty is sacred if they can come for me soon enough they can come for you.
Our first priority should be to stop his legislative agenda.
Second we should work to win as many seats as possible in2010.
2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama's presidency?
Without question the country has elected a marxist that hates capitalism and liberty.
3) There's been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?
These men are commentators on the news and ideas of the day just like news print journalist and Sunday talking heads. They have a different format and possibly are better at what they do than others. They do not hurt the right, I believe they help. They certainly are what the 1st amendment is about.
4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America -- with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonja Sottomayor's "wise Latina" comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?
It is not about race it is about ideology Justice Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Condi Rice, Micheal Steele, Alberto Gonzales and many others on the right are ignored or destroyed by the left but never celebrated.
5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn't get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.
No
6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?
It is viable. If you talk the talk walk the walk.
7) Is there anything I didn't ask about that you'd like the media or the country as a whole to know?
Liberty is sacred if they can come for me soon enough they can come for you.
#25
Dear Conor,
Many questions, little time. But here goes, in a nutshell what I am thinking about our future.
I have distilled down to the simplest concept of what it is we are (perhaps, ‘should be’ would be a better phrase) about: LIBERTY. How do we insure the blessings of liberty in the face of changing situations and dynamics. How do we maintain liberty as a desirable concept in the face of a state apparatus that wants ever more power and treasure? How to we promote liberty and honest government as many of our fellow citizens seem willing to sell their birth right for social spending from a corrupt system?
No one knows what challenges may arise that may change our situation in sudden and significant ways but knee jerk reactions such as the Patriot Act, McCarran Act and other government actions impose increased limits on liberty but are very hard to revoke.
NATIONAL SECURITY:
Republicans take the Constitution seriously when it comes to the whole “protect and defend” business and believe strongly in the “provide for common defense” phrase as it pertains to why we have a government in the first place. We frequently abandon notions of personal liberty when the security of the state is threatened or perceived to be. Republicans should think about this problem: when does the concept of security trump liberty and how to we find a balance and when do we discard restrictions? Note that Mr. Obama and the Dem controlled congress has not modified or revoked the Patriot Act.
LAW AND ORDER: one of our favorite issues. What we really want is citizens to act like Citizens without additional restrictions on liberty. A noble aspiration to be sure but frequently found to be a vain hope. We have to learn to be critical and selective on new laws regulating human behavior. Also, we must remain sensitive to the abuse of civil rights and the rush to judgment for heinous crimes.
We need party discipline. Would it not serve to throw out some miscreants from time to time? Bill Postmus, Ted Stevens and others that have used politics and the GOP to secure personal gain?
We need to develop and reward a hard core of party cadre to focus our efforts.
In a nutshell: leave the abortion debate to others, emphasize self-reliance and personal responsibility, work to de-fund the left, define and promote liberty, identify environmental greenness as a threat to freedom.
I could go on and on but you are probably already bored and I want to watch the Dodgers.
Thaddeus Taylor
Many questions, little time. But here goes, in a nutshell what I am thinking about our future.
I have distilled down to the simplest concept of what it is we are (perhaps, ‘should be’ would be a better phrase) about: LIBERTY. How do we insure the blessings of liberty in the face of changing situations and dynamics. How do we maintain liberty as a desirable concept in the face of a state apparatus that wants ever more power and treasure? How to we promote liberty and honest government as many of our fellow citizens seem willing to sell their birth right for social spending from a corrupt system?
No one knows what challenges may arise that may change our situation in sudden and significant ways but knee jerk reactions such as the Patriot Act, McCarran Act and other government actions impose increased limits on liberty but are very hard to revoke.
NATIONAL SECURITY:
Republicans take the Constitution seriously when it comes to the whole “protect and defend” business and believe strongly in the “provide for common defense” phrase as it pertains to why we have a government in the first place. We frequently abandon notions of personal liberty when the security of the state is threatened or perceived to be. Republicans should think about this problem: when does the concept of security trump liberty and how to we find a balance and when do we discard restrictions? Note that Mr. Obama and the Dem controlled congress has not modified or revoked the Patriot Act.
LAW AND ORDER: one of our favorite issues. What we really want is citizens to act like Citizens without additional restrictions on liberty. A noble aspiration to be sure but frequently found to be a vain hope. We have to learn to be critical and selective on new laws regulating human behavior. Also, we must remain sensitive to the abuse of civil rights and the rush to judgment for heinous crimes.
We need party discipline. Would it not serve to throw out some miscreants from time to time? Bill Postmus, Ted Stevens and others that have used politics and the GOP to secure personal gain?
We need to develop and reward a hard core of party cadre to focus our efforts.
In a nutshell: leave the abortion debate to others, emphasize self-reliance and personal responsibility, work to de-fund the left, define and promote liberty, identify environmental greenness as a threat to freedom.
I could go on and on but you are probably already bored and I want to watch the Dodgers.
Thaddeus Taylor
#24
1) So long as it's in the opposition, where should the Republican Party focus its energy?
“Bring Jobs Back to the USA”. The Republican Party should focus its energy on jobs for Americans. Not more government jobs, but tax incentives for corporations to bring manufacturing back to the USA. Relax prohibitive environmental restrictions so Americans can compete in global marketplace. Tax incentives for small businesses. Americans want to work and want to buy labels “made in USA”.
2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama's presidency?
The most worrisome part of Obama’s presidency is the accelerated government takeover of corporations, banks, appointing czars and liaisons with labor unions. It appears the president is preparing to become dictator.
3) There's been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?
Talk radio and cable news hosts must be granted complete freedom of speech. The Republican Party as an entity should not react, that means that Michael Steele, Chairman of Republican Party should not react to media. Be proactive, not reactive. Individuals who happen to be Republicans may react at their discretion. It’s called freedom of speech.
4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America -- with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonja Sottomayor's "wise Latina" comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?
I hope that the Republican Party will do more to include the Asian and Hispanic community who, generally, share Republican beliefs of family values and individual freedom. Do not respond to democratic “race card” tactics.
5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn't get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.
Women I talk with are critical of Congress. Legislators on both sides of the aisle have not represented the American people prudently. Energy crisis, jobs going abroad, illegal aliens, healthcare…all issues that have been ignored for twenty years until it has finally broken…what you resist will persist. They feel like they have lost their voice. Grassroots efforts are critical in informing local voters about what is being done and what they can do.
6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?
Yes, this is a viable alliance for the future of the Republican Party. Sarah Palin has done more to generate energy in the Republican Party than any other person since Ronald Reagan. It is too early to talk about the presidency, but the Republican Party would benefit by having her as its spokesperson along with Michael Steele. As a team, they could quickly unite the GOP and Independents. It is time for the Republican Party to go on the offensive and stop graveling. It could go a long way in uniting the Republican Party.
7) Is there anything I didn't ask about that you'd like the media or the country as a whole to know?
Yes, medical expenses are crippling the working poor. Government programs are not the answer. I would like to see some leadership from Republican legislators to create a forum and invite all levels of medical care providers to solve their own problem. Let “them” come up with insurance proposals, healthcare delivery systems, affordable drug programs, long time care and catastrophic illness care and present corporate sector solutions. Tort reform is a major issue and must be addressed. I know it is complex, but it can be done without government intervention.
Doug and Brenda Rogers
Virginia
“Bring Jobs Back to the USA”. The Republican Party should focus its energy on jobs for Americans. Not more government jobs, but tax incentives for corporations to bring manufacturing back to the USA. Relax prohibitive environmental restrictions so Americans can compete in global marketplace. Tax incentives for small businesses. Americans want to work and want to buy labels “made in USA”.
2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama's presidency?
The most worrisome part of Obama’s presidency is the accelerated government takeover of corporations, banks, appointing czars and liaisons with labor unions. It appears the president is preparing to become dictator.
3) There's been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?
Talk radio and cable news hosts must be granted complete freedom of speech. The Republican Party as an entity should not react, that means that Michael Steele, Chairman of Republican Party should not react to media. Be proactive, not reactive. Individuals who happen to be Republicans may react at their discretion. It’s called freedom of speech.
4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America -- with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonja Sottomayor's "wise Latina" comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?
I hope that the Republican Party will do more to include the Asian and Hispanic community who, generally, share Republican beliefs of family values and individual freedom. Do not respond to democratic “race card” tactics.
5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn't get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.
Women I talk with are critical of Congress. Legislators on both sides of the aisle have not represented the American people prudently. Energy crisis, jobs going abroad, illegal aliens, healthcare…all issues that have been ignored for twenty years until it has finally broken…what you resist will persist. They feel like they have lost their voice. Grassroots efforts are critical in informing local voters about what is being done and what they can do.
6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?
Yes, this is a viable alliance for the future of the Republican Party. Sarah Palin has done more to generate energy in the Republican Party than any other person since Ronald Reagan. It is too early to talk about the presidency, but the Republican Party would benefit by having her as its spokesperson along with Michael Steele. As a team, they could quickly unite the GOP and Independents. It is time for the Republican Party to go on the offensive and stop graveling. It could go a long way in uniting the Republican Party.
7) Is there anything I didn't ask about that you'd like the media or the country as a whole to know?
Yes, medical expenses are crippling the working poor. Government programs are not the answer. I would like to see some leadership from Republican legislators to create a forum and invite all levels of medical care providers to solve their own problem. Let “them” come up with insurance proposals, healthcare delivery systems, affordable drug programs, long time care and catastrophic illness care and present corporate sector solutions. Tort reform is a major issue and must be addressed. I know it is complex, but it can be done without government intervention.
Doug and Brenda Rogers
Virginia
#23
1) So long as it's in the opposition, where should the Republican Party focus its energy?
Gaining a majority in both houses. We should do that through good ideas, well thought out programs and viable fixes to current problems. Carping at the majority from the sideline doesn't portray leadership ability. It is popular to criticize "Congress". This has got to stop. It is a "Democratically Controlled Congress" that is wreaking all this havoc.
2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama's presidency?
The arrogance displayed by the entire administration. The inability to process ideas that are contrary to your opinion is fatal.
3) There's been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?
Their listeners do not always or ever understand that they are entertainers. I'm not discounting their ability to formulate opinion or the good they might do as watchdogs. However, we must understand that in order for them to be successful, they have to have good ratings. Their decisions therefore are not based on the good of the Republican Party, but on how certain subject matters will affect ratings. We have to clearly delineate between members of the Republican Party and entertainers. We should be careful to ensure that people do not feel they are speaking for the Republican Party.
4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America -- with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonja Sottomayor's "wise Latina" comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?
The race issue is a minefield that's impossible to navigate. If the guy on the other side of the table is a different color, race is at the least, a perceived factor. I've never been successful in any interpersonal relationship where I have ignored the ethnicity of the person I'm trying to relate to.
As a personal aside, I get tired of everyone ignoring the ethnicity of white people. I cherish my Scottish heritage and it helps form the person I am. I'm proud of my ancestors and the oppression they overcame to build a vibrant and culturally rich society.
Anyway, the party needs to recognize that race isn't a political issue, it's a cultural issue. As long as we can all see, we will notice the difference between people. I would suggest that we embrace ethnicity and celebrate it. The difficult problem is getting people to understand that allowing your ethnicity to be an excuse is nonproductive. It allows the Democrats to take advantage of you, to push you into a group, to apply a common label and create a situation in which hard work and effort are not recognized as the way out. Nobody's ever going to give someone else as much as they have. They're always going to want an edge and they're going to want payback for what they give. Earn it and it's yours with no strings.
5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn't get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.
The national media conversation? I haven't seen any of that lately, just people shooting soundbites of each other. Our county is very rural and has been hit hard by environmentalists affecting our natural resources-based industries. The folks in this county are hard workers and do for themselves. When your closest neighbor is 1/4 or 1/2 mile down the road, you learn to solve your own problems. When you ask for help, people know you really need it and are there for you. I guess our biggest issue is that people do not understand why we live here and that our problems are very much different from theirs. A guy who grew up in Chicago, doesn't know anything about my lifestyle. It's my feeling that there are more of us than you realize and the Republican Party has to make more of an effort to communicate with and energize us country folk. We can tip the scales, but if you want someone to drive 20 to 30 miles in the snow to vote you have to get them to understand how important it is.
6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?
It certainly seems to me that that's the face of the Republican Party. I qualify for all those groups.
7) Is there anything I didn't ask about that you'd like the media or the country as a whole to know?
A lot of stuff, but I've got to get back to work. Tell the media to give me the facts, I'll draw the conclusions.
Norris D. Boyd
State of Washington
Gaining a majority in both houses. We should do that through good ideas, well thought out programs and viable fixes to current problems. Carping at the majority from the sideline doesn't portray leadership ability. It is popular to criticize "Congress". This has got to stop. It is a "Democratically Controlled Congress" that is wreaking all this havoc.
2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama's presidency?
The arrogance displayed by the entire administration. The inability to process ideas that are contrary to your opinion is fatal.
3) There's been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?
Their listeners do not always or ever understand that they are entertainers. I'm not discounting their ability to formulate opinion or the good they might do as watchdogs. However, we must understand that in order for them to be successful, they have to have good ratings. Their decisions therefore are not based on the good of the Republican Party, but on how certain subject matters will affect ratings. We have to clearly delineate between members of the Republican Party and entertainers. We should be careful to ensure that people do not feel they are speaking for the Republican Party.
4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America -- with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonja Sottomayor's "wise Latina" comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?
The race issue is a minefield that's impossible to navigate. If the guy on the other side of the table is a different color, race is at the least, a perceived factor. I've never been successful in any interpersonal relationship where I have ignored the ethnicity of the person I'm trying to relate to.
As a personal aside, I get tired of everyone ignoring the ethnicity of white people. I cherish my Scottish heritage and it helps form the person I am. I'm proud of my ancestors and the oppression they overcame to build a vibrant and culturally rich society.
Anyway, the party needs to recognize that race isn't a political issue, it's a cultural issue. As long as we can all see, we will notice the difference between people. I would suggest that we embrace ethnicity and celebrate it. The difficult problem is getting people to understand that allowing your ethnicity to be an excuse is nonproductive. It allows the Democrats to take advantage of you, to push you into a group, to apply a common label and create a situation in which hard work and effort are not recognized as the way out. Nobody's ever going to give someone else as much as they have. They're always going to want an edge and they're going to want payback for what they give. Earn it and it's yours with no strings.
5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn't get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.
The national media conversation? I haven't seen any of that lately, just people shooting soundbites of each other. Our county is very rural and has been hit hard by environmentalists affecting our natural resources-based industries. The folks in this county are hard workers and do for themselves. When your closest neighbor is 1/4 or 1/2 mile down the road, you learn to solve your own problems. When you ask for help, people know you really need it and are there for you. I guess our biggest issue is that people do not understand why we live here and that our problems are very much different from theirs. A guy who grew up in Chicago, doesn't know anything about my lifestyle. It's my feeling that there are more of us than you realize and the Republican Party has to make more of an effort to communicate with and energize us country folk. We can tip the scales, but if you want someone to drive 20 to 30 miles in the snow to vote you have to get them to understand how important it is.
6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?
It certainly seems to me that that's the face of the Republican Party. I qualify for all those groups.
7) Is there anything I didn't ask about that you'd like the media or the country as a whole to know?
A lot of stuff, but I've got to get back to work. Tell the media to give me the facts, I'll draw the conclusions.
Norris D. Boyd
State of Washington
#22
1) So long as it's in the opposition, where should the Republican Party focus its energy?
Bringing in younger members with fresh ideas and grass-roots commitments.
2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama's presidency?
Vetting of White House appointments.
3) There's been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?
Most talk show hosts merely reflect the opinions of those who listen to them, without making a large difference in the overall demographics of the nation (or region). The GOP should work with them, not against them, to facilitate enfranchisement among the grass-roots members who also follow these personalities.
4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America -- with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonja Sottomayor's "wise Latina" comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?
The GOP should follow Chairman Steele’s advice from his speech to the 2009 NAACP convention – give up on “outreach” and treat those who share our values as equals in partnership. We need to connect with those individuals and communities as they have more to offer the GOP than the GOP has to offer them.
5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn't get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.
There is a generation gap (in both parties) that is not given the attention it deserves. The Baby-boomers are trying desperately to hang on to power and leave their legacy. In doing so they are committing a great disservice to the generations of their children and grand-children.
6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?
I don’t see any change to this coalition. What we need are true conservatives in leadership who are not looking to merely compromise with the liberal sector of the nation (which means we continue to move left, only more slowly), but take a leadership role in moving the entire nation towards a small government, conservative economy, and libertarian society.
7) Is there anything I didn't ask about that you'd like the media or the country as a whole to know?
I don’t anticipate any real change in either party until the Baby-Boomers are too old to participate and wield their will on the younger generations.
Sam Richardson, Chair
Fluvanna Republican Committee
Bringing in younger members with fresh ideas and grass-roots commitments.
2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama's presidency?
Vetting of White House appointments.
3) There's been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?
Most talk show hosts merely reflect the opinions of those who listen to them, without making a large difference in the overall demographics of the nation (or region). The GOP should work with them, not against them, to facilitate enfranchisement among the grass-roots members who also follow these personalities.
4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America -- with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonja Sottomayor's "wise Latina" comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?
The GOP should follow Chairman Steele’s advice from his speech to the 2009 NAACP convention – give up on “outreach” and treat those who share our values as equals in partnership. We need to connect with those individuals and communities as they have more to offer the GOP than the GOP has to offer them.
5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn't get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.
There is a generation gap (in both parties) that is not given the attention it deserves. The Baby-boomers are trying desperately to hang on to power and leave their legacy. In doing so they are committing a great disservice to the generations of their children and grand-children.
6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?
I don’t see any change to this coalition. What we need are true conservatives in leadership who are not looking to merely compromise with the liberal sector of the nation (which means we continue to move left, only more slowly), but take a leadership role in moving the entire nation towards a small government, conservative economy, and libertarian society.
7) Is there anything I didn't ask about that you'd like the media or the country as a whole to know?
I don’t anticipate any real change in either party until the Baby-Boomers are too old to participate and wield their will on the younger generations.
Sam Richardson, Chair
Fluvanna Republican Committee
Friday, October 9, 2009
#21
1) So long as it's in the opposition, where should the Republican Party focus its energy?
The GOP must have a three-pronged approach to the state of the union:
a) It must stand upon the watch towers and expose the real agenda of the Obama administration in terms that common people understand and then effectively contrast them with the basic principles of conservatism.
b) It must use any and all means, parliamentary and well as political, to place speed bumps and roadblocks at every turn to slow down the statist legislative agenda.
c) It must recruit electable candidates who will stand for the basic principles of conservatism when in office.
2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama's presidency?
The unbridled horse race to Fabian socialism on the one hand, and the fact that there are avowed and unapologetic Cummunists in the White House being paid by US Taxpayers who are advising the president on domestic policy issues.
3) There's been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?
Thank God for letting Al Gore create the Internet. The rise of cable news and Internet sources of news are our salvation right now. Were it not for real men like Limbaugh, Beck, Levin and Hannity, we would wake up in America in the not-to-distant future wondering what happened to our Constitution and our God-given human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America -- with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonja Sottomayor's "wise Latina" comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?
I only see the Demcrats doing the race baiting. Texas got over that issue a long time ago. Take a look at all of the elected state-wide officeholders and you will find plenty of people to make Martin Luther King, Jr. proud - that is, unless your ideology is leftist. If so, then the remarkable achievements Texans have made at building a color-blind society are reduced to sneers of token representation and the worn-out and cliched slogans about Uncle Tom's fronting for the REAL power brokers.
5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn't get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.
Open borders and the resultant threat to our national security are an ignored issue. The financial drain and cost to taxpayers which illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and anchor babies put on border states like Texas is enormous. This issue will not likely be solved as long as both Parties compete for the Hispanic vote and keep the issue political rather one of national security.
6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?
The alliance is alive and well. The Texas GOP Platform is a wonderful document in all aspects. It should be adopted nationally and it must be articulated by candidates who can reach into the souls of Americans on an emotional level to compete against the emotional dogma from of the Fabian socialists who promise a free lunch for everyone.
7) Is there anything I didn't ask about that you'd like the media or the country as a whole to know?
I believe that the wreckless spending in Washington is part of a plan to wreck our economy and facilitate a socialist takeover of the basic industries as the Fabian socialists did in Great Britain following World War One.
The checks and balances of the collective 50 state constitutions and the overlapping US Constitution are not adaptable to socialism in their current form. So an economic collapse must precede an event which opens the door to a revolutionary rescue. The devasted economy in the aftermath of WWI allowed such an opening in Great Britain.
But the planners of such a collapse must know there will be God-fearing, multi-generational Americans standing arm-to-arm with first-generation freedom-loving immigrants who together will fight to preserve our Constitution and our American way of life. We will not willingly fall into the hands of tyrants.
The GOP must have a three-pronged approach to the state of the union:
a) It must stand upon the watch towers and expose the real agenda of the Obama administration in terms that common people understand and then effectively contrast them with the basic principles of conservatism.
b) It must use any and all means, parliamentary and well as political, to place speed bumps and roadblocks at every turn to slow down the statist legislative agenda.
c) It must recruit electable candidates who will stand for the basic principles of conservatism when in office.
2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama's presidency?
The unbridled horse race to Fabian socialism on the one hand, and the fact that there are avowed and unapologetic Cummunists in the White House being paid by US Taxpayers who are advising the president on domestic policy issues.
3) There's been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?
Thank God for letting Al Gore create the Internet. The rise of cable news and Internet sources of news are our salvation right now. Were it not for real men like Limbaugh, Beck, Levin and Hannity, we would wake up in America in the not-to-distant future wondering what happened to our Constitution and our God-given human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America -- with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonja Sottomayor's "wise Latina" comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?
I only see the Demcrats doing the race baiting. Texas got over that issue a long time ago. Take a look at all of the elected state-wide officeholders and you will find plenty of people to make Martin Luther King, Jr. proud - that is, unless your ideology is leftist. If so, then the remarkable achievements Texans have made at building a color-blind society are reduced to sneers of token representation and the worn-out and cliched slogans about Uncle Tom's fronting for the REAL power brokers.
5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn't get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.
Open borders and the resultant threat to our national security are an ignored issue. The financial drain and cost to taxpayers which illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and anchor babies put on border states like Texas is enormous. This issue will not likely be solved as long as both Parties compete for the Hispanic vote and keep the issue political rather one of national security.
6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?
The alliance is alive and well. The Texas GOP Platform is a wonderful document in all aspects. It should be adopted nationally and it must be articulated by candidates who can reach into the souls of Americans on an emotional level to compete against the emotional dogma from of the Fabian socialists who promise a free lunch for everyone.
7) Is there anything I didn't ask about that you'd like the media or the country as a whole to know?
I believe that the wreckless spending in Washington is part of a plan to wreck our economy and facilitate a socialist takeover of the basic industries as the Fabian socialists did in Great Britain following World War One.
The checks and balances of the collective 50 state constitutions and the overlapping US Constitution are not adaptable to socialism in their current form. So an economic collapse must precede an event which opens the door to a revolutionary rescue. The devasted economy in the aftermath of WWI allowed such an opening in Great Britain.
But the planners of such a collapse must know there will be God-fearing, multi-generational Americans standing arm-to-arm with first-generation freedom-loving immigrants who together will fight to preserve our Constitution and our American way of life. We will not willingly fall into the hands of tyrants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)