Let’s get over it, and learn from it.Republicans have been given a message; whether they listen to it will determine how long they struggle in the minority. What’s the message? Adopt some sound principles and apply them with integrity. In the past few years Republicans have abandoned key principles in favor of opportunistic pandering. The party of smaller government and fiscal responsibility has spent wildly and grown government dramatically. The party of individual accountability, the party that selectively decries the “nanny state,” has protected us from ourselves and the perils of internet gambling. The party that claims to support less intrusive government has worked to define marriage (a religious rite), tapped phones without court checks, and even tried to dictate the medical care of a comatose woman in Florida. In the name of security, the Republican administration has treated its POWs with an appalling double-standard, compromised its citizens’ civil rights, and arguably not achieved the promised objectives of security. Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States. Every oath of office has some variation of this pledge. How tough can that be? Democrats tend to turn to government for solutions to all of society’s ills, shortcomings, and pet peeves. Republicans profess to trust the individual, to conservatively apply governmental power only as permitted by the Constitution, and to leave issues to states’ discretion whenever possible. Unfortunately, there’s been a new kind of “conservative;” one who holds conservative cultural and personal beliefs, and freely exercises the power of government to impose those conservative views on others. Republicans need to find the integrity to reject this kind of false conservatism. Republicans need to distinguish themselves from Democrats by what the Republican Party can do for America, and not just by bad-mouthing “liberals,” or “tax and spenders,” or other childish ad hominem attacks of the sort so popular on blowhard radio. Republicans need to rebuild their credibility on security by working constructively in the world, rather than antagonistically. Republicans need to rebuild their credibility on economic opportunity for all Americans by putting earning power back in the hands of working people, rather than providing advantage for the connected. Republicans need to curtail rampant government, but constructively – simply blocking Democrats is not adequate. I believed there are fundamental issues of tax structure and the impact of deficit spending, civil liberties, and foreign policy that our “professional” politicians can hardly address for fear of alienating their funding base. We need to insist that our Party address these issues rather than spending time on the cultural distractions that have dominated recently. I’m running for President in an attempt to highlight these issues. I have no incumbency to defend, and no financial base to which I owe consideration. I’m realistically only focused on a localized campaign to gain just a symbolic delegate or two to prove my point at the 2008 Republican National Convention. I’ve outlined the priorities I envision and a variety of platform positions. Whether you share my view on these specific issues, join me in an effort to renew the Republican Party. Hold the Party accountable for its principles and insist on meaningful debate. There’s no point in resentment of this election. The message is a clear rejection of the status quo. Let’s move the Party forward to 2008 and beyond. Michael Previous: One good plug deserves another... -- Next: The Fork in the Road. Comment from Corvallist: Maybe this will actually give your campaign a boost! If Republicans learn from their mistakes, they’ll stop favoring the extremists and evangelicals in favor of moderates like yourself. One can hope, anyway. I was genuinely sorry to see Lincoln Chaffee go. Friends in Rhode Island said they would’ve voted for him any other year, but wrenching control away from one party to be more equitably shared took priority. Darn shame, really. Posted by Corvallist Nov 8, 11:37 AM # Comment from CAcorn4: I guess the evangelical ecumenism for human rights that Professor Hertzke documented—see my responses to Michael Smith’s weblog entry about Kanye West as well as the last entry before this one—will now be able to challenge the Democrats to take up the internationalism espoused by Senator Sam Brownback and Nicholas Kristof. Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist visited Sudan himself to perform surgery under the auspices of Samaritan’s Purse. Representative Tom Tancredo challenged the State Department back in 2002 in support of capital market sanctions against the Sufi fascist regime in Khartoum. Those two men were clearly involved in this alliance for human rights along with Senator Brownback, as were Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, and now-Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman. Perhaps it is time to reveal a possible true bombshell from Professor Hertzke’s phenomenal book: endorsement of a 1998 lobbying campaign for religious liberty by… future Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. That’s right, folks. The exact same Nancy Pelosi who supports homosexual rights, “comprehensive” immigration reform, a raise in the minimum wage, and embryonic stem cell research. Why the focus on Christendom in the Southern Hemisphere? Two simple statistics: 70% of Protestant evangelicals now live in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and global Christianity is now 75% concentrated in the developing world. In addition, Alexis de Tocqueville and, more recently, Robert Putnam have stressed that churches teach civic skills that place high value on their role as institutions of mediation and production of trusting relationships in a healthy democracy, as happened most recently in Costa Rica, South Korea, and Taiwan. In other words, I wouldn’t discount evangelical influence in American politics and global leadership just yet. Posted by CAcorn4 Nov 9, 03:54 PM # Comment from Michael Smith: CAcorn4, I won’t dispute that religious charities and evangelicals sometimes do good, and that some religious principles are virtuous. I will vehemently defend the 1st amendment principle that government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That requires Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and yes, even Atheism be given equal protection and indifference simultaneously. Our founding fathers fought the Anglican theocracy of rule by divine right and fully appreciated the perils of religious dogma in government policy and practice. Too many of our pseudo-conservatives wish to use government as an instrument of moral proselytism. They lack Constitutional integrity, and they fail to understand the threat that even well intentioned government endorsement of their cause could harbor. As you admonish, I don’t “discount evangelical influence in American politics and global leadership just yet.” On the contrary, I fear it will further damage the Republican Party by alienating millions of thoughtful Americans and it threatens to undermine our Constitution when it manifests itself as governmental policy. I intend to fight it and to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” in whatever manner I can. Posted by Michael Smith Nov 10, 10:50 AM # |
Favorite Posts:
Other Blogs:Links:
Feeds - SFP updates for your homepage:Previous Posts: |
