Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Republican Rebirth

The election is over and the analysis has begun. The GOP situation is Iowa is dire. With the noteworthy exceptions of 2004 where our top of the ticket was incumbent President George W. Bush and iconic Senator Charles Grassley, we have been pounded at the top and up and down the ballot. We are now entering year eleven of Democrat control of Terrace Hill and Tom Miller has been driving business out of Iowa for a generation.

Following the Lightfoot beat down in 1998 our share of legislative control has rapidly diminished. The 78th General Assembly contained a 30/20 GOP margin in the Senate and 56/44 in the house. Four years later, following the 2002 beat down of Doug Gross those margins fell to 29/21 in the Senate and 54/46 in House. The results of the 2006 were a new, young Democrat governor and minorities in both houses. Two years later we are sitting at 19/31 deficits in the Senate and, at best, 45/55 in the House. These are the facts.

We Republicans can have one of three responses to the present circumstances.

We could simply pretend that this increasingly sharp nose dive into political oblivion is a mere deviation from the normal political climate rather than the new normal, as we have repeatedly done over the last eight years, With redistricting rapidly approaching, this response will assure Democrat dominance in Iowa for a generation.

We could disintegrate into a chaotic civil war with an infinite regression of animosity and recrimination. While we focus on redressing wrongs against each other, real or imagined and meaningful or slight, the Democrats prosper and we thereby assure Democrat dominance for another generation.

Or, we could look in the mirror, recognize our failings and embrace a new and unified course of modernizing our Party, in both word and deed. Every defeat produces opportunity. While we certainly should not think replicating failure will magically produce success we also should not fear that the future holds no other road to victory. Or, as that famous advocate of tax relief Willy Nelson once said, “
there is no easy way, but there is a way.”

First we must agree on exactly who we are. Are we anything but the party of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Is our purpose anything other than securing control of the government so as to apply those three foundational principles to the circumstantial needs of each successive generation? Is there any institution other than the Republican Party that stands between the American people and the Democrat agenda of amorality, authoritarianism, Marxist collectivism and despair?

Second, we need to talk about No. 1 above-all the time and in every venue possible.

We should never forego the opportunity to remind people of the Republican brand that has kept them safe and prosperous for a generation. Does anyone think the old mainstream media in Iowa and elsewhere are going to accurately describe our principles? The ISEA devotes one hundred percent of its political effort and assets to the election of Democrats-what does that say about how the Republican principles are presented in our schools?

Nor do we need to rely on out of state consultants and a few people “at the top” to tell our story. Every Republican can be informed and share the Republican vision of our shared future with friends, family and the checkout clerk at Casey’s thanks to Al Gore’s internet. Every county chair and state central committee member should be our spokesman. Our leadership needs to relentlessly argue the superiority of our principles in some venue every day-and be joined by as many voices as possible. We create the echo chamber.

The vigorous clash of general principles of governance and social policy is a necessary component of our rebirth, but it is not sufficient. More than anything, politics is only important to the voter to the extent that one of the two parties provides for the needs of each generation. Each party does so in accordance with the principles described above. We cannot win if we have nothing concrete to offer the voter. Given in the indisputable results, whatever we Republicans perceive to have offered of late, the Iowa voter has either rejected or has been insufficiently persuaded of its benefit. While the confrontation of that last factual reality might be particularly brutal for us to accept but it's just that recognition of a problem is the first step of any solution.

There is a solution.

Third, we present a modern agenda. Perhaps the following is a good place to start.

1. Grow our own prosperity. Iowans can be neither free nor happy if we do nott create the prosperity that liberates us from government’s grip. We should present the people of Iowa with a clear agenda of reducing taxes and regulations on existing small businesses and creating new incentives for the creation of new small businesses in Iowa. We should forego reliance on large multi-nationals that can destroy local economies when the fields of corporate welfare look greener elsewhere.

2. Reform education. Iowa’s schools are rapidly deteriorating. Political and cultural indoctrination have replaced education and preparation for good citizenship in too many of our schools. Ever increasing education budgets have produced ever diminishing returns yet no one asks the question why? The ISEA has made it clear that we are their enemy so lets take ‘em on! Advocating depoliticizing and debureaucratizing the educational environment, accountability for results by annual testing, and the introduction of patriotic education and fact based history would prove popular with the voters. The opportunities available to an ill educated population for liberty or happiness are inherently limited.

3. Go Green. We are at the center of the biotech future, and the future is now. There is no reason Iowa cannot become the Silicon Valley of biotech. The small businesses and start ups of that would follow an investment friendly tax and regulatory code could be married to incentives to save and produce energy. Waive the fuel tax on biodiesel refined in Iowa.; give homeowners big credits for installing solar; tax credit for retailers who install CNG pumps and consumers who purchase CNG cars and investing in better mass transit all sound like clean, free market ideas that require little bureaucracy to manage and would all produce good jobs.

4. Get moral. How can we expect to have a free or happy society that wallows in its own hedonism? Restoring the concept of morality is essential to protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What is the cost of illegitimacy in Iowa? What is the cost of juvenile crime arising from the lack of intact families? What are the chances for a free and happy life to people born in poverty? We need to refine and reiterate our argument that the traditional values we represent brought stability and optimism to generations of Americans whereas the post modern constructs like the “Right to Choose” and homosexual marriage that the Democrats promote bring nothing but social implosion.

5. Stay free. Most Iowans think government is broken don’t want government controlling their lives. We capitalize on that with small, not smaller, government solutions to problems health care access If the 2008 election proves anything it is our inability to win in the absence of stark and clearly explained distinctions with the Democrats but we also cannot win without solutions to real problems. Preservation of the right to work and cleaning up electoral integrity are completely consistent with and essential to a freedom agenda.

When the Democrats proffer big government solutions our first two questions should be why it would work where government has failed elsewhere and why cannot some other institution address the problem better. But we don’t just critique, we offer real world alternatives-and get the alternatives to the people. During the session, while our legislators are in Des Moines, our state and county party leaders can raise those questions and promote our legislative freedom based alternatives in their communities through constant action of lit dropping, petition signing, volunteer recruiting and talking not just to newspapers but radio shows, Rotary Clubs and the every local labor lodge that will safely speak to their members. Involving more people more of the time in more productive activities and investing them more in the decision making process is going to go a long way toward unifying the party in purpose and spirit.

John and Paul once asked a question that needs asking today, “
You say you’ve got a real solution,…we’d all love to see your plan”? Well, there’s a start.

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

And we need to get moving politically. It seems Republican candidates are left flapping in the wind while Democrats are centrally funded. Republicans have to learn all the lessons of a campaign with few reasources and a finite pool of die hard supporters spread among many campaigns while Democrats roll with paid staffers. The only way to do this is to create a campaign machine and we have been sadly lacking in that capacity.

I hope Teddy considers taking over the state GOP with this vision and gets his hands on some real resources so he can do some good.

-Buddy

Claire said...

Ted: What you are completely missing here is the fact that the republican idealogy no longer resonates with a growing majority of Americans. Couched in your "platforms" are exclusive policies that alienate and exclude people who aren't in the conservative far right crowd. Meanwhile, as you so assutely noted in your post, your party's "standard bearers" are increasingly the very ones being caught with their pants down (cough, Senator Craig, Senator Stevens). So, in my humble opinion, until you guys adjust your planks for the reality of the world (i.e. abortion is never going to be illegal again), then you will never regain the trust of the country and the support you need to govern.

Also, the rejection of intellectual thought in the party and the embrace of cheeky euphemisms such as "drill baby drill" and "Joe the Plumber" is reducing your base to stupid mouth breathers and scared soccer moms. Is that who you want to be around? Not me.

Anonymous said...

On the contrary Claire!

Republicans should not run to the center at all since John McCain was the moderate and he was beat playing the nice guy. He catered to illegal immigrants, believed in global warming, refused to confront Obama, and generally rejected the Conservatives. Did moderates and Liberals rush to him? Apparently not, according to the polls, and Conservatives rushed to him once he picked Palin. But failing to articulate a contrast with Obama cost him the moderates because he sounded just like Obama on so many issues.

Ted is right, we must articulate our core values and stick to them if we want to regain our momentum. You cannot out liberal a liberal because they will outbid you everytime.

-buddy

Anonymous said...

Its also important to note claire, that an amendment to define Marriage as a union between one man and on woman PASSED. Not just passed, but passed by a wide margin, in states like Florida and California. Places wich big liberal populations where Obama won on Tuesday night.

Democrats dumpped a ton of money into Chis Hagenow's district trying to tie him to the platform and he won. Down in Indianola a pretty solid conservative leader Kent Sorrenson knocked off long-term incumbent Democrat Mark Davit in a Democrat County in a Democrat year ...

Now, if you could, explaine why you believe that the country has moved to the left?

In truth, it hasnt. Republicans simply lost the trust of the American public. People like Mark Foley, Larry Craig and Bob Livingston have ruined our ability to talk with any kind of creditability on our values.

Anonymous said...

One Republican messes up for every hundred Democrats and the media goes crazy talking about the Republican Culture of Corruption. What a double standard.

Anonymous said...

There should be an above the fray movement as we saw in 1980.

Reagan did preach against liberalism and shun everyone with a centerist or left leaning view.

YES we should keep our conservative Ideals, but we should show how it works for everyone.

We need to STOP whinning about the media, for christ sake, it make us look like wimps.

We need young charismatic challengers to replace some of the old Republican guard, starting with Steve King in the fifth district, and replacing eneffective leaders like Chris Rants.

We need a minority leader from a democratic area

Spotlight said...

The country has moved (slightly) to the left because it has seen how conservatives govern. Forget Larry Craig, he's not your problem.
Remember how much conservatives loved G. W. Bush, and recall that

He invaded a nation on false pretenses but did not plan on what to do after Iraq was quickly defeated and

He violated the Constitution with his detention policies and torture and wiretapping and

He turned government over to hacks like Heckova Job Brownie who ran a once praiseworthy FEMA into the ground and

He cut taxes for the richest and wanted to do it again and again while running big deficits and

He spit in the face of scientists of all kinds who said things that didn't fit his worldview and

He tried to end Social Security as we know it because the stock market always goes up and

He signed a major education bill but never funded its strict requirements and

He never did anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

That's the conservative record. Why are you still worrying about gay marriage and gay Senators?

Spotlight said...

Ted,

Here's a bit of solace for you. Dem control of the legislature should not matter for redistricting. Iowa supposedly has the purest redistricting process in the USA: non-partisan work by the Legislative Services Bureau should not lead to Dem dominance. Maybe you know of flaws in the system, but I don't.

In fact this may protect incumbent Repubs for 2010. Why would a Dem bother to try to unseat an incumbent R when the district could change unpredictably after the census numbers are known. I expect challengers to wait for 2012. OTOH, this dynamic should also protect the Dem majority during the 2010 election as Rs will have no money or motive to challenge Ds.

Grant Young said...

Ted posted something?

Just kidding man.

Welcome back!

Grant Young said...

Ted posted something?

Just kidding man.

Welcome back!

blubinus said...

Ted, Blake from down the hall.

Liked the post a lot. I am going to be very interested to see how the GOP rebrands itself over the next 2-4 years. The party of Lincoln has now become the party of the rural southeast and portions of the midwest--our new President-elect made new inroads for Democrats everywhere. Your 5 plank platform, however, seems a little tin-eared to me. The election on Tuesday was a pretty resounding repudiation of the "New Right" (sorry for the flabby term--we've had enough conversations that I think you know what I mean) that grew out of the 1980 election. Your platform seems to me a little bit like an appeal to Ronald Reagan conservatism--I'm just not sure that ideation of the Republican party will work anymore. Your reform of education plank is interesting. What is "patriotic education"? De-politicizing education is extremely important, but it has to come from both sides. The constant refrain from folks on the Right has been to shut the doors on public schools through vouchers and direct private school funding. Of course, my Leftist friends refuse to understand that increased spending doesn't seem to work. There has to be middle ground out there. More Reagan-era education ideas are not ideas for which the majority of Americans seem to be looking. Third, your going green principles are great. No complaints from me here. Your morality initiative is troubling, and I really think this is where I get off the train, especially your espousal of the right to choose and gay marriage as "post-modern" constructs. To me, this sounds a lot like Scalia's position that our country only cares about the majority--discrete and insular minorities can't and shouldn't be protected. I disagree with that notion. There is no such thing in any sociopolitical regime (especially a constitutional one as dynamic as ours) as a homogeneous majority. The U.S. is a collection of several minority groups struggling to find common ground by which they can communicate and govern themselves. Under a "traditional morals" model, you leave out several members of our society who deserve, by accident of their birth and guaranteed by the Constitution, to enjoy the same privileges and immunities that you do. A woman should not be restrained from enjoying the economic and social privileges a man enjoys simply because she may become pregnant. She should have the right to choose how to conduct herself without interference by her government (you'd probably agree with this if the woman was a business). Similarly, the right to marriage has been a fundamental right protected by our Constitution for the last 40 years. As you know, to infringe on a fundamental right requires a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored. Please explain to me the compelling state interest in restraining homosexual marriage. If that state interest is protecting traditional morals, please explain to me how protecting those morals is consistent with American jurisprudence with respect to the Establishment Clause. I believe we can have a constructive debate about this.

All that being said, I would submit that the Right and the Left need each other. This is not an appeal to Jimmy Carter style "let's all get along" politics, but an attempt at redefining our politics as something other than the zero-sum game our two parties have made it--especially over the last 8 years. Though I do believe the fault for that lies mostly in the rhetoric of our current President, Vice-president, and their staff, I do believe we can get beyond it and finally put the country back together. Lincoln was able to do this, with help from the left. Hopefully, the Right will be able to do the same for our new President-elect.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post.

Anonymous said...

Great post. We are tired of the same old people losing the same old races with the same old candidates and then whining about others with the same old stories. These same old people that preach family values are the same old people that are a laughing stock. They have affairs, they drink too much, they lie. They don't stick up for themselves and their beliefs.

It's not conservative thinking that caused Tuesday, it's the actions of people calling themselves conservative that has done this.

Get rid of the dead weight, Ted! We are behind you.

Anonymous said...

has anyone else noticed all the "morality" initiatives coming from the godless left? It's MORAL to pay higher taxes??? It's MORAL to redistribute wealth???

I'm sick of their social liberals shoving their morality agenda on America.

Anonymous said...

has anyone else noticed that the only thing social libs care about is abortion and gay marriage? Can't they talk about anything else?

Sheesh

darwin says said...

do the solibs understand that they don't have science behind them on the abortion or stem cell issue? It's not a christian right thing. It's science. When does life begin? Science says it's at conception. Real life physical science - documented by scientists.

What is the science that supports the solibs points of view that a fetus isn't life, so therefore, it's ok to kill it?

That's just part of their liberal religion. It ain't science.

the extreme left wingers are just religious nutballs said...

do the solibs understand they have no science to back them up on global warming? No science. Just liberal religious fervor about something in which they believe as a matter of faith.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:42: I was simply responding to Ted's post. He mentioned pro-choice and homosexual marriage. I wasn't pulling that out of thin air. Furthermore, my comments on those two issues were parts of a larger comment on what I feel the Republican party needs to think about when the next election season rolls around. Tuesday night was not a fluke, nor was it regional. Democrats won in Republican districts across the country. I'm not arguing that the country has moved in a particular direction ideologically. I'm merely suggesting that politics structured around ideology specifically (as what Ted and many of my friends on both the right and left want to argue) and that one ideology is not only superior by definition, but also retains the authority of some kind of mysterious moral mandate, is the product of narrow thinking. If we expand our notions of politics beyond pure ideology and metaethical argument and into a discursive discussion of what will actually work, we may actually get somewhere.

As for Anonymous 12:41, let's get serious. Social liberals shove their "morality agenda" on America no more or no less than social conservatives do. Also, characterizing the left as godless does a disservice to a large community of god-fearing people who care passionately about ending poverty and curtailing climate change. They see the initiatives in a different light than an Agnostic such as myself, but we agree that something must be done. Why can't work to a common end? Further, there is nothing inherently "moral" about a progressive tax policy (one created by another brilliant Teddy, I might add)--it's simply a policy. On my view, how a government raises money is not a question for a normative ethical debate unless that government is causing harm to its citizens. I do not agree with the conservative notion that a progressive tax policy harms the citizenry enough to trigger a normative ethical indictment. Is this not how our democracy improves? Let's discuss these issues like adults instead of blithely tossing labels that provoke indignation instead of reasoned thought.

--blubinus
(sorry for the anonymous post--my google identity isn't working for some reason)

blubinus said...

Darwin, I'd like to see your sources. I'm pretty sure there is still some disagreement to that position within the scientific community. Furthermore, I challenge you to pinpoint precisely when conception happens. Not every person has a sex life that's been regulated enough that they can point to a particular encounter and say with certainty, "This is when we conceived." (not suggesting this of you personally--just making a general statement) Without that certainty, a law of general applicability seems problematic to me. Another thought--if a developing fetus is a person entitled to full legal protections, would not a pregnant woman experiencing mortal difficulties with her pregnancy (as diagnosed by her doctor) be entitled to defend herself? Would you agree that right now, you and I are both persons protected by legal rights? Would you agree that one of those legal rights is the right to defend ourselves from mortal danger? If I put you in mortal fear for your life, would you agree that you have a right to defend yourself? To my way of thinking, if you give a fetus personhood, the same argument applies. By not allowing an abortion, you are forcing a woman to choose the life of her assailant over herself, which is incongruent with our law.

blubinus said...

Extreme:

In a study in this week's issue of Nature Geoscience, an international team of scientists reports on the results of a new model they say proves the human footprint in global warming in the Antarctic.

The model incorporates 100 years worth of temperature data from the Arctic and about 50 years of recorded temperatures from stations in Antarctica.

The temperatures in the Antarctic were gathered along the coastal areas, according to scientists, because it is too difficult to get to the continent's interior.

When the temperature data from both continents were plugged into the model, scientists say it clearly showed the human effects of global warming in the South Pole.

Andrew Monaghan is with the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. He wrote the News and Views article in Nature.

"That's why this study is so important because it formally demonstrates the human contribution to [global warming] for the first time," he said.

In a teleconference with reporters, Monaghan said substantial warming has been detected along up to half of Antarctica's frozen coastlines that will lead to an even greater rise in sea levels.

"While nothing catastrophic is envisioned in the next century, there could be a substantial acceleration in the [ice] melt," he said.

Monaghan expects the effects of global warming will at the Poles even after humans stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

Voice of America News, October 30, 2008.

Just one example. Do you have a counterexample? I believe the weight of authority supports the notion that carbon emissions caused by human activity have contributed substantially to the warming of earth. However, I'm perfectly willing to listen to reasonable argument.

blubinus said...

Also, Extreme, could you please explain what a Liberal Religion is? Is it the same as secular humanism? If so, why is it a religion? I'm actually writing a paper on this for my Law and Religion class and would love to here a contrary view on this idea. Do you perhaps believe that legal structure evinces religious principles? If so, how?

vlad the impaler said...

As we conservatives drag the remnants of our movement into the wilderness with no idea how we will emerge or whether we will ever emerge as an electoral force in America which is recognizable by my generation, we must inevitably engage ourselves in the most soul- searing inquiry of what went wrong. This will be an agony but equally it will be effective only to the degree that it hurts. It will not succeed without bloodshed. There must be finger-pointing and bloodletting. We must carve to the bone. The process must be Darwinian. Those whose ideas are false must be bayoneted on the trial.

The object is to find our soul -nothing less. In a come to Jesus sense we must get absolutely clear what it means to be a conservative. Only at this point do we look to the tent flaps and open them. Those who cannot subscribe to the hard-won consensus, to a confession of faith as to what is a conservative, should walk out through that flap. Those who are attracted from the outside to the core message of conservatism should be encouraged to walk through the flap and enlarge the tent. What the left wants us to do is to expand the census in the tent prematurely and thus turn a movement into a menagerie.

The Soul-searching must be conducted by conservatives without the earnest ministrations from liberals like those of Politico. This article, of course, has nothing whatever to do with explaining why Republicans lost 2008 election across the board, it has everything to do with first efforts by the left to sabotage the rebuilding process on the right which must be done exclusively by the right.

We have not lost the 2008 election because we were excessively partisan while Obama was enlightened and transcendental. We actually lost the election because George Bush and Karl Rove betrayed the soul of conservatism. A party without its soul is like an army which does not believe in itself, it cannot win the next contest. A party which had abandoned its principles and so lost the last two elections and frittered away both its power as the ruling coalition and its status as the majority philosophy of the nation, cannot expect to swell its ranks by recruiting to a lost cause. The party must first know what the cause is and only then can it recruit. To again borrow the military analogy, a party like an army disintegrates without a mission. Armies are assigned missions but a political party finds its mission only through soul-searching.

As this process occurs we will be told by the left that only a big tent party can win and that to become a big tent one must move to co-opt the center. That is not how it works. That is the reverse of the way it works. The center is not peopled by voters with fixed notions about the exercise of power who wait for one of the great political parties to surrender their values and embrace the tempered and resolute opinions of the middle. That happens with splinter parties but not with the mushy middle. When an unaffiliated voter bestirs himself to enter the polling booth he is confronted with one of two options: right or left. He does not consider who has moved the farthest geographically from right to the left or left to right any more than he commits because of his own long held political beliefs. He votes for the fella who best tickles his fancy at the moment. Put more charitably, he votes for the candidate who persuades that he is the best, and has the best to offer.

If we as conservatives do not believe that we have the best to offer we should get out of the business. A candidate, like a party, who is centered on his philosophy has integrity and is persuasive. And that philosophy must first have a vertical spiritual component which finds expression and out working in a horizontal governing philosophy.

In what seems like a violation of this principle, Barak Obama won all three debates and John McCain lost them. Debates are not decided on points, which John McCain might actually have won, but on who advances his election chances. By all accounts, the country left the debates feeling that Barak Obama was presidential. Since a perfect storm of historical forces and Republican Follies had disposed the nation to vote Democrat, Barak Obama passed the test and won the debates. John McCain lost the debates not because he lacks a vision-his vision is that of America-but because he lacks a governing political philosophy. A philosophy which is clear and shared by his base and attractive to the middle. His governing philosophy is, ultimately, whatever he thinks is his vision of America.

In the bizarro world of the 2008 election, John McCain had a soaring vision of America but could not articulate it and had only a subjective governing philosophy. McCain tried to do what the authors want, at least he made the right noises, calling for bipartisanship. It availed him nothing. It came off as a pander even though McCain had a historical claim to bipartenship and Obama does not. Barak Obama had a clear vision of America which was utterly repellent but which which, fortunately for him, was detected it seems only by Freepers. Because of his race, Obama was asked only to demonstrate that he could walk and talk like a president. Obama has won the middle, not because he pandered to them, which he did, but because he had the wind at his back.

As John McCain reverts from titular head of the Republican Party to United States Senator, it falls to the rest of us to contrive a governing philosophy which he, unfortunately, did not own and therefore could not bequeath to us. We had such a legacy from Ronald Reagan but we squandered it. We must construct our own. We must do it in the wilderness. We must do it unaided by intermeddling liberals. Theirs is the serpent's way, the easy way, a pander to the superficially popular, the accommodation to the middle.

Anonymous said...

BRAVO, TFS

Anonymous said...

Steve Deace and Kim Lehman will bring about the end of the Iowa GOP. Maybe a third party will emerge - fiscal conservatives with moderate social views and capture 60% of the vote.

Anonymous said...

Ted, how soon can we expect a new State chair election?

Down with big tent stu!

-mr soil/water conservationist

Brent Oleson said...

Ted:

Go to rebuildtheparty.com

The manifesto from an operations perspective is there.

Change had better come or we will keep contracting as a Party.

P.S. Ideology and a hardening of the same is not the solution. We need to broaden our "brand" and make it more positive and solution oriented, not negative and parental in nature.

Anonymous said...

And the recipe for winning is we need Lundby to give each candidate over 20k.

Anonymous said...

Money for candidates is important and it is unreasonable to expect good candidates to go it alone until the very end without any support.

The bit about immoral Republicans is getting a little old. The new standard seems to be any Republican must be pristine in every way and clean as ivory soap. That is an impossible standard given that the media will create stories against Republicans when none existed. Remember the story about Palin's affair?

Republicans are usually very clean compared to Democrats but since Republicans seek morality, they are held to a lifetime standard well beyond Democrats. Democrats are celebrated for terrible morality and evasions of responsibility whilst Republicans are accused of hypocrisy for supporting an ideal or attempting to emplace standards. The fact is everyone falls short of God's standard but we are called to forgive and seek improvement. We should never give up and accept an immoral position simply because it occurred.

The Democratic position is akin to Satan's in the Bible, always there to remind of us our sin and to say "you did it once, now does it again because you're too weak."

The Democrats have successfully stolen the day by simultaneously claiming Republicans are the corrupt when they are, in fact, far more and claiming Republicans lack compassion because they do not hand over wealth irresponsibly. What if the prodigal son's father had spent the remaining money the same way the prodigal son did? Somebody has to be responsible and the Democrats are not that party.

Democrats basically believe there is a big pot of money out there and if they only take it from the rich and give to the poor, everything will work out. They do not believe the economy is interconnected or understand that raising wages does nothing if the Cost of Living increases at the same time. Making everyone Union has the same effect except the destruction of the company simply means we are all poor together in short order.

The stock market has fallen over 400 points for two days in row now the Obama has been elected. The Republican Party better get their act together and get new leaders like Teddy in charge before it is too late. Identify candidates for next round early and start the hard work that must be done.

-buddy

vlad the impaler said...

Brent, you are dead wrong. As I posted earlier, at this point, broadening the brand is recruiting for a lost cause.

Anonymous said...

Ted for State Chair, Bekah Brandmeyer for County Chair!

-soil/water

Christopher Patton said...

Sporer is terribly out of touch with reality...

http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2008/11/07/Opinions/The-Gop.Must.Change-3531477.shtml

Anonymous said...

I would like to hear more thoughts from Ted on how the party mechanisms can be repaired or reconfigured. The way we operate, communicate and organize is far behind the dems in a number of different ways.

Larry W. Voorhees said...

Ted:
and everyone, I guess.
I confess to being a rookie at this whole political thing. However, it has become apparent to me two things:
First..only by actually talking with people, can I get my message out. I have to have "face-time" with them in order for them to listen.
Second...like Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid." There were people I spoke with that said, "Yes, I agree with your ideas, and think that you're right, but I can't vote for you because you're not a Democrat."
Sorry, but to my brand of common sense, that's just plain stupid.
As far as what "the party" needs to be doing...well, I really don't know. I know what I need to be doing, and that's maintaining my foundational beliefs and ideals. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and there simply is no middle ground, when it comes to those issues.
Abortion is wrong. Period.
"Marriage" is defined as being between one man and one woman. Period.
EVERY time the government says "I'm here to help", they lie. Okay, maybe they don't like on purpose, but the end result is that people end up more dependent on the government, and less dependent on themselves.
Education: we need to be teaching our children basic skills, not social programming. And we need to be checking them annually to see that the learning is taking place. If they aren't learning the material, they do NOT MOVE ON to the next level until they can demonstrate an acceptable level of comprehension and utilization of the basic skills. Period.

Would I have liked the county and/or state party to help me out with my campaign this year? Sure. I could use all the help I could get. Unfortunately, I think I was looked at as a "nice to have, but not necessary to have" district. So be it.

But keep this in mind...I am not merely a name on a ballot to fill in a blank. I will continue to be "in the fray", and I will be back on the ballot again in 2010, and I will take back District 68 for the people who are not afraid to have some common sense and are not afraid to stand up and make the right choices.

If the Republican Party is going to re-focus itself on standing up for what is right, and doing the next right thing, cool beans. Glad to have you along.

If not...thanks, but I'm pretty sure I can find my way to the Capitol building on my own. And I'd be willing to bet that I'll get there before you do, if you're traveling that all-inclusive, bring-everyone-under-the-big-tent road.

Why?
Because this is still Iowa, and the motto still is, "Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain."

--Larry Voorhees, Candidate
Iowa House of Representatives
District 68
2010
www.larryvoorhees.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Ted for State Chair, Sara Bowman for County Chair!

William Meyers said...

I like William Meyers for State Chair!!
Go Me!!
Im the man!!!

Art A Layman said...

blubinus:

I've been away from the blog a short while so I'm not current on the rantings going on here. That said, I have seen few, we're talking ones and twos here, exhibiting the objective, logical, sensible arguments you pose. Not even our vaunted host presents so reasonably and brilliantly. He does exhibit signs of brilliance, fleetingly. It may just be that he has imbibed the koolaid for too many years.

That you are a Republican gives me, not pause, but minor apprehension. On the other hand, it has been decades since we've heard a Republican speak with such intelligence. It is truly amazing that you have "slipped the surly bonds" of sound bites and that you can avoid modifying every noun or verb or adverb with the word "liberal".

My take has always been that conservative Republicans see through a prism that only allows black or white. Not only do they not countenance nuance and gray, they can't even see it. Conversely, liberal Democrats see all gray even when the answers may be black or white. Simplistic I know.

All in all, it is with great pleasure that I find a commenter who appeals to reason and logic rather than vitriolic fatuousness. Despite all the pollution the air seems fresher.

It is comical, and pathetic, that sporie, in his appeal to more progressive ideas, finds it necessary to continue to demean and denounce Democrats, especially those of a more liberal persuasion.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Art A Layman said...

sporie:

All kidding aside, you do offer some good ideas in this piece. The failing I see is you seem to want to continue the war, the battle, the competition from a derogatory stance.

Democrats, no less than Republicans, believe that their principles are in the best interest of all the people. Interestingly, you, and most Republicans, maintain that you are the party of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Certainly your stance on abortion supports the "life" statement, but it obliterates the "liberty and pursuit of happiness" statement.

I would doubt that you accept an intent in the Constitution of a right to privacy, the predicate for Roe v. Wade. Notwithstanding that you are more qualified to argue the question, it seems clear to me, via the first 5 Amendments, that a right to privacy was implied or intended. Primarily they all seem to say, "government, get involved where injustices occur, otherwise, stay the hell out of private lives". No doubt abortion is a complicated issue with valid arguments on both sides, but pushing your arguments from a position of Godly righteousness and pronouncing the Dems ideas as the work of the devil goes nowhere to resolving the main problem, which is to minimize the number of abortions. No one, nobody, on the Democratic side is proposing that Walmart should offer abortions at a discount.

The conservative view on immigration is equally troublesome. Illegal immigration is a serious problem requiring complex solutions. Focusing on a wall and criminalizing illegal immigrants does nothing to address the complexity of the issue. Explain to me the difference between the illegal immigrants of today versus the pioneers who settled the old west. Granted we have codified laws where the Indians felt they had natural laws, but the interloping is not without parallel.

Gay marriage may strike at the heart of staunch believers in the inerrancy of the Bible but the argument that it somehow destroys the institution of marriage between a man and a woman is fatuous. It could be argued that marriage, even though it has been with us throughout history, is a legal construct. For centuries it was a contract of ownership and property not of love and devotion. We in the western world liberated and improved on that original basis. Have we now reached the end of further improvements?

In reality, the distaste for homosexual marriage is much less about the legal status of the contract and much more about the heinous view, on the part of many, of the sexual acts taking place among homosexuals. For you strict constructionists, show me where in the Constitution homosexual marriage is denounced or disallowed. The 9th Amendment would appear operative. Was the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" only meant to apply to the majority, or worse a voting minority?

If you didn't accept it before I would think that you would now realize that globalization and free trade has greatly altered many of the paradigms under which our country prospered for years. Maintaining our growth and increasing standards of living, in this new world, would seem to argue for an arbiter, a monitor or a final adjudicator to keep the playing field level with an emphasis on the welfare of our citizens as paramount. The government, federal or state, is the only likely candidate. That will mean bigger government.

The real issue and answer, is not big versus small or smaller government. It is about smarter government and neither party has, so far, managed to achieve that.

To my mind, our founders envisioned a government of wise, well meaning individuals, with a collective desire to improve the plights of our citizens. They purposely established a government that functioned on compromise. I don't know that they necessarily envisioned only a two party system but wise compromise was going to require a commonality of interests leading to wise compromises. When ideologies become too polarized we get compromise in the guise of, often, the worst decisions.

I applaud your attempts to review and rehash your principles and direction. The rush, in some corners, to redefine the Republican party following the recent election results can easily lead you astray, into bandaids instead of sutures. In reality, just as in most of our recent political upheavals, if not throughout our history, your future prospects are much less predicated on your message than on your opponents failings.

I am an Obama supporter and believe that he can possibly achieve great things but I realize that had not our experience under Bush 43 been so horrendous, Obama would have faced a much more formidable task.

In your brainstorming for new ideas and new selling points it might be good to assess those principles that are not gaining favor in the general populace and jettison them. Not that the ideas are invalid or without merit but you've been trying to sell some of them for thirty years with only sporadic success. Again, often those successes were less a function of a belief or disbelief in all your ideas than a disgruntlement with the party in power and their performance.

In sports competitions it is often necessary to paint your opponents as dastardly, vicious, mean spirited cheaters. That stirs the passions and the energies to promote winning in a very time limited endeavor with no real consequence other than disappointment for the losers. In politics and government the winners and losers are all the people, not just the fans of one side or the other.

Be a real leader Ted, not just a cheerleader employing the same words but with new gymnastics.

Pardon my brevity.

Anonymous said...

Brevity? Get real and go back from whence you came.

Anonymous said...

Art has not been missed and his return is not welcome.

Art A Layman said...

anonymous:

Alas, the choice is not yours to make.

RF and the few other Dems, oops, pardon me, "liberals", posting here, need reinforcements from time to time.

Anonymous said...

Something tells me Art's input is not welcome by anyone but Art.

Art A Layman said...

anonymous:

That voice you hear is from your brain and since your brain doesn't seem to be engaged I'm not sure you should pay attention to the voice.

Anonymous said...

What a joke! When Sporer is busy molesting little boys, he's busy puffing up his own ego. What a FUCKING LOSER!

Anonymous said...

I have heard absolutely nobody talk about the parties last chance for healthy debate amongst one another, the Iowa caucuses. In a hard fought battle, Mike Huckabee(a social conservative with a message) overcame the money machine of Mitt Romney (a fiscal conservative and absolute economy genius) to defeat him in a race that was not even close. 60% of the republicans that showed up to vote were born again evangelicals. Mike Huckabee overcame what many of you "conventional wisdom" and critical thinkers deemed impossible. It is not very hard to identify where the base of the party lies with 60% the vote being evangelicals who voted. Recognizing that fact will help us to restrategize and regroup. Now, Huckabee also had a message and brought out a lot of young voters. This has to be a model for us as we go forward. We can work together but if you don't support the social issues on the platform, you tend to have more liberal thinking in other areas as well. Conservatism is a thinking pattern and cannot be split into categories. You cannot be liberal on social issues and hold firm on fiscal responsibility. We are just not programmed that way. As we move ahead, let us remember the caucuses that many fiscal conservative/social liberals here in Iowa would rather forget.

Hello! said...

Well done! I started my Republican Vision blog Election Night to start encouraging our party to return to our roots, while embracing new campaign strategies. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Ted:

That's pretty much the biggest load of horse shit I've ever read. You don't mean a damn bit of this nonsense. All you care about is lining your own pocket. Quit acting, it's obvious.

mark said...

Jindal was at the IFPC event Saturday. He had a very good message and did talk about the family (his specifically) and how it relates to our world. The longest applause and "standing O" came for former Speaker Pro-Tempore Danny Carroll. The people in the crowd really respect Danny and look to him for answers to questions like "so now what?" There was not a person in the room that was sitting in the large audience. It is clear who the legislators want as the new chair at RPI, Danny Carroll.

Recovering said...

We are in a liberal cycle right now. Liberalism is chic at the moment.

We need to be poised to act when public opinion inevitably shifts back to conservatism as it did in '96 and many times prior.

Anonymous said...

You clowns had your new prophet in the palm of your hands but you blew it:

Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.

Anonymous said...

You are a loser dude.

Anonymous said...

Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.

Anonymous said...

"8 year olds"

-Dude from Big Lebowski in reference to a "loser"

Anonymous said...

Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.

The Man who owns Ted Sporer's ass!

Anonymous said...

Actually, Klein was just a "smelly old dude" who made a mockery of himself while managing to offend every person he met.

The serial poster above has something in common with Klein...they're both extremely annoying.

The smelly part remains to be seen....

Anonymous said...

Smelly? Oh yeah, I'd second that. Klein was smelly just like any other piece of shit. Problem with that clown was that you couldn't flush him. What a complete asshole that guy was/is. Why does anybody have a reason even to bring that fool up in conversation?

Anonymous said...

Ask the idiot posting his name over and over and over and over and over (ahhhhhhh)

Anonymous said...

Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.

Anonymous said...

IS - Old
IS - Smelly'
IS - Delusional
PROBABLY NOT - a Doctor
DEFINITELY NOT - President
WITHOUT A DOUBT - Annoying fool

Anonymous said...

Ouch!

Take that nasty doctor poster.

Anonymous said...

Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.
Mark Klein, M.D.

Anonymous said...

mark klein arrested for gay sex in nj denny's bathroom yesterday

funny funny funny

Anonymous said...

And believeable since he fits the mold.

Labels

Amazon Bookstore