Recently in Republican Ideals Category

By Patrick Ruffini over (again!) at the NextRight (with my emphasis at the, sometimes, appropriate spots):

One of the biggest reasons for the Right's decline in the Bush era is that we had long since completed most of the items on our to-do list. Low marginal tax rates? Check. The Soviet Union gone? Check. Welfare reform? Check.

This empty cupboard of ideas had led to progressively more minimalist Republican governing agendas and campaign platforms. If John McCain proposed any big, game-changing policy shifts in the last election, I must have missed them. It's true that Obama's ideas were not new either -- but he was able to sell them as "change" because they had been not tried in toto since the Johnson Administration, and people had forgotten how badly they had crashed on the rocks their last time out. Obama's central thesis -- that government ownership and central planning can outpace returns in the private market -- is actually very, very old. His playbook is that of FDR in 1933, Attlee in 1946, and Mitterand in 1981.

The effect on the Right even before Obama had been so corrosive that the institutional right was utterly incapable of offering any competing thesis of the economic crisis, leaving government ownership and bailouts as the only "appropriate" policy response. Even the previous Administration, made up of men of the Right, justified the bailouts -- and particularly the auto bailout that precipitated the White House putsch at GM -- as inevitable, "temporary," "emergency" measures.

Fast forward two months into the Obama era. Pro-forma denials of nationalization and socialism aside, the White House feels responsible enough for the insurance and automobile industries to dictate their management and maximum salaries -- the classic hallmarks of ownership. The Federal budget has swelled to $3.6 trillion, and revenues cover barely half the bill. To an extent probably never seen before in our history, there are no consequences for business failure, no consequences for individuals who took out loans they couldn't pay for, and no consequences for government that overspends.

The Welfare State mentality of the '60s that created the conditions for 1980 and 1994 systemically excused bad behavior at an individual level, creating millions of individual tragedies. Obamanomics systematically excuses bad behavior at the wholesale macroeconomic level, creating a vicious circle of irresponsibility with major consequences for every American.

If nothing else, the first 70 days of Obama -- with an assist from the last 4 months of Bush -- has left government economic policy so off-kilter that it may take a decade or more to fix. Remember that exhausted to-do list? Not a problem any more.

For the first time in decades, Republicans could run on a platform of cutting government by a third and not seem wild-eyed or mean-spirited. When we talk about the dangers of governments running private businesses, we will have contemporary object lessons to teach with, not bogeymen that are decades old or oceans away. When we talk about getting the government out of our lives, more people will nod their head knowing exactly what we mean, having just footed the bill for bailout after bailout, instead of yawning or dismissing it as a non-issue as they did in the prosperous, laissez-faire post-Reagan America.

The end result of this agenda, the size of government at 2007 levels, may seem minimalist in any broad sweep of history, but it is galvanizing in a way it wasn't before because of the sheer scope of what's changed in six months. The yawning gap between where we are now and where we were two years ago gives conservatives an ambitious goal to reach for and a reason for being again, even if the end result is little change over time. And if we get a mandate to actually cut government significantly -- and I think the public mood will shift there in a few years if not sooner -- it might not be that much harder to cut it to below pre-Obama or pre-Bush levels because current levels are so out of whack that people would not be able to tell the difference between that and what the status quo was in the mid-2000s -- only that it is change.

Though it has apparently triumphed, this is a dangerous moment for liberalism. Long-planned moves toward redistribution like universal health care or the repeal of the Bush tax cuts are being conflated with and to some extent elbowed aside by emergency nationalizations and Mr.  Geithner's experiments. The White House is not selling the de-facto AIG and GM nationalizations as such, because they know the stigma the S-word carries. It becomes harder to sell the long-standing liberal policy agenda as urgent and necessary when the Administration is busy putting out ten different fires first. And after Year One, it becomes exponentially harder for a new President to push wants instead of needs.

Meanwhile, it becomes easy for Republicans to point to real-life consequences of government control to nullify the entire Obama agenda. Screw ups like the AIG bonuses will inevitably happen and be magnified by the fact of government investment, and this will have a chilling effect on the public's view of interventionism more broadly in areas like health care. Barack Obama standing behind your new muffler will not be looked upon with warm and fuzzies in the years to come. The best case for Obama is that this time in history is seen as sober and necessary. But that's not a rallying cry and a movement-builder. The right will be galvanized to action by the theft of the free enterprise system. What will the left be galvanized by?

Max Boot has another good article from The Next Right on a focus for reinvigorating the Party:

There have been a lot of great posts on this site about the future of the Republican Party and the Freedom Movement. I want to add mine to the pile, but do so in a way that offers a clear framework and three-step process going forward: 1. Reboot, 2. Rebuild, 3. Rebrand.

1. Reboot – Coalesce around a Vision

Like many large, powerful organizations, the Republican Party began to suffer from inefficiency, mission creep and stagnation. Why does this happen? These organizations become victims of their own success. They lose their way because they lose site of the Vision. Losing site of the vision means paths diverge, the organization splinters—all of which can lead to dissolution. But isn’t it possible for an organization to get its footing back? Remember when Steve Jobs returned to Apple? He brought the Vision back. Now we have iPhones. Luckily, we already have what Jon Henke calls an “organizing principle” around which to coalesce. It’s called liberty. Or, if you like, the Vision of the Founders. Rebooting requires getting the vision back in the manner of a Thomas Jefferson circa 1774, or a Ronald Reagan circa 1979. In case anyone here needs a refresher, here are the Top 5 ingredients of that successful Vision, already given to us by the Founders:

• Freedom is good for its own sake. (We don’t like tyrants or nannies.)
• Freedom gives rise to prosperity. (It helps us to be prosperous.)
• Freedom can only be guaranteed through limiting government. That may mean “going local” (federalism), checks and balances (constitutional reform), or financial constraints (tax & spending reform). As Madison warned: There are no angels in Washington.
• Freedom must never be auctioned off. (That means must never be sold to special interests, politicians, corporations—even for short term political gain).
• Freedom’s protection and preservation is the sole purpose of government. (Freedom sacrificed to equality (or “crisis management” or “pragmatism” or X) gives us neither.)

Once everyone has bought back into that Vision, things get a lot clearer. People remember why they were doing any of this in the first place. They have a both a beacon in the darkness and a reason to fight. Right now, we’re still in reboot phase. But with a President-elect and Congress that is both Keynesian and Machiavellian, we have a perfect opportunity to re-embrace the principles of the Founding and define ourselves by way of contrast. (They, after all, are but sloganeers, demagogues and opportunists.)

Read the whole thing.

From PolitickerNH:

Wendelboe-Cullen spat spills over into UL comment section
By Brian Lawson, PolitickerNH.com Reporter

An argument between New Hampshire Republican Chairman Fergus Cullen and Fran Wendelboe, head of the New Hampshire Reagan Network, has taken center stage in the online comment section of The Union Leader.

The two were featured in today's Granite Status over allegations that Wendelboe is organizing an effort to replace state committee members with conservatives Republicans. It started earlier this week when Betsy Miller was replaced as the chair of the Merrimack County Republicans by Anne Copp, a prominent supporter of the Reagan Network.

"This isn't a fight between conservatives and moderates," Cullen wrote in the Union Leader's comment section. "Most NH GOP activists, including the ones Fran just excommunicated from the Merrimack Committee, accurately describe themselves as conservatives."

Cullen then went on to argue that this is an attempt by Wendelboe to become chairman of the state party.

"No, this is simply about Fran trying to line up votes in her Ahab-like effort to become state party chairman, booting conservatives who don't support her narrow, extreme view of who makes a good Republican," Cullen added. "If only Fran would put as much energy into fighting Democrats as she wastes plotting and scheming against fellow Republicans."

Wendelboe countered that she is looking out for the principles of the party.

"What Fergus doesn't understand is that I am not fighting fellow Republicans, I am fighting for the principles of the Republican party--those enumerated in not only our state platform but the national platform as well," Wendelboe wrote. "Yes, we have a big tent, but those who are ‘out of step' with the platform are the ones fighting to make those who do fully support the platform as the ones who somehow are divisive if they don't abandon the areas they don't agree on."

Wendelboe also said that it was the members of the Merrimack County Republicans that kicked out Miller and not Wendelboe.

In the same Daily Sun article as here, the reporter had news on the Democrat picnic (which was excised from the report on this site.  However, Democrat Deb Reynolds attempted to tell her fellow Liberals that it really didn't matter - it wasn't their fault.

Uh-huh - sure it isn't!  From yesterday's Daily Sun (P 4):

To the Editor,

In the Sun article published 7/28 (Mars v. Venus: Dems & GOP forming battle lines over fiscal and social issues), Democrat Senator Deb Reynolds remarked about the 17.5% rise in State spending under Democrat control being under Republican attack: “It’s not true,” she exclaimed. The senator insisted that “new” spending measures added up to “barely 3-percent”, with the rest of the increase caused by “things we had no control over”, like the cost of state employee insurance benefits.

You know, I'd love to be able to do my family budget the same way this Democrat Senator does for NH taxpayers. Imagine, only being concerned with “new” spending – while ignoring increases in the “fixed” spending that they've helped to create. Sorry, but non-discretionary spending IS part of the overall budget (after all, you are forcing us to pay for it, right?) even if she wants us to ignore that little-bitty fact.

Like all State spending, everything budgetary can be controlled – the Democrats simply chose not to. After all, with control over all branches of government, the Democrats can choose to control funding, expenditures, programs, and staffing – they chose not to. They could change the law and issue executive orders to control how they use your tax money – but they chose not to. Instead, they chose to spend more, not less. I challenge her to show us anywhere in the budget where Democrats chose to spend less, not more.

NH families have to be concerned with ALL of their spending, especially that spending forced by government taxes. Unlike Senator Reynolds, they know how to prioritize their spending and cut where and when necessary when revenues do not meet expenditures. They know what is really important and what is not for their hard earned money and their family budgets. They know that “fixed” costs have to be managed as well as the discretionary costs. And when needed, the former gets cut, too. And that, managing money, is a traditional NH value.

Skip Murphy
Gilford Town Republican Chair
(Cross-posted over at GraniteGrok)

Democrats have been flooding the Letters to the Editor for a while without much of a Republican response.  Well, that is now starting to change.  Dave Horvath is no longer willing to let those Letters be free publicity for ideologies that we know to be wrong.  His latest missive is here (others over at GilfordGOP.org) - c'mon folks, join him!

Once again, Dave takes on the illogic of the left, proceeds with logic!  From the Laconia Daily Sun (7/28, P5):

To the editor,

Last week, Senator John McCain spoke very passionately, eloquently and adroitly as he addressed questions on Veteran’s medical care from the N.H. Veterans delegation. His concerns and solutions included better medical attention and helping the homeless veterans. There was no doubt in my mind that his words were sincere. The audience in Rochester concurred. Senator McCain’s history of military service and sacrifice is unimpeachable.

The surge in Iraq has succeeded and I am personally glad that Obama has crawled out from his hiding hole, with his new found courage and freshly grown anatomical parts, and is taking this pilgrimage to the Middle East. Some say that he left the country out of fear that Jesse Jackson wanted to harvest these new appendages. This is his fi rst trip in three years. John McCain has been there eight times. John McCain is one of the prime reasons that we even had the surge and its subsequent success. Obama cannot even acknowledge that it was successful militarily and politically. However, as it was billed as a fact finding trip, most wise people would wait until they landed and actually talked to the generals before offering the results of the investigation.

Obama thought it necessary to remove from his website any reference to his two-year opposition to the surge prior to embarking. Why? So now I am asked to go to his website and see how he cares for our military and our veterans. You are trying to convince me that Obama is not the arrogant elitist that has shown open disdain for our troops and steadfastly voted against funding them. Words have meaning. It helps to convince me if they are not changed constantly as Obama does his.

Once upon a time politics ended at the waters edge. Gore, Kerry, Reid, Clinton, Pelosi, et. al. have created a new political art form in their overseas excursions and the blame President Bush, blame America first mantra. Obama has had ample opportunity in the recent past to meet with our Generals, specifically General Petraeus, in Washington. He chose not to. When his prime sponsors, the far left radical, Moveon and DailyKos, ran the “General Betray Us” infamous ad in collaboration with the “New York Times”, Obama could have joined with most of our senators and congressmen and denounced this ad. He opted out. How does Obama’s “fight the smears" site address these truths?

Obama has not held one Senate meeting, let me repeat that, not one meeting, on Afghanistan affairs and he is the chair. Today, he tried to take credit for the financial pressure that has been exerted by the U..S against Iran, claiming it was his banking committee’s efforts. He is not on that committee. Today, he said Iran is a grave threat. He used to say it was a puny country. A year ago he wanted to meet with Iran’s leaders without “preconditions”. He has been waffling ever since. Truth or smears?

Senator John McCain was accurate and honest with his assessments of Obama and most defi nitely justifi ed in making these criticisms. Most people recognize that Obama is not qualifi ed to lead this nation in any capacity.

Cathy Merwin is correct. We need to start paying attention to the truth. I would suggest that she differentiate between truth, talking points and opinion. There is only one set of facts from which truth can be derived.

David R. Horvath, Sr.
Gilford

And who, pray tell, invoked this righteous missive - look after the jump!

From RedState:

The GOP is the Party of Freedom of Choice

The Party that Believes in Your Right to Direct Your Life

Charles Manson stole this song from the Beatles – now, we’re stealing it back.

The Republican Party has always embraced a wide range of ideological beliefs – and this diversity of thought has sometimes inspired conflict, as it has also led to great achievement. Yet through all debates, despite all regional or political concerns, the foundation of Republicanism has been the same since its inception: the freedom of the individual, and the value of every human life.

These principles have guided the party from its origin as a political force to destroy slavery, to the long fight against communism, to the ongoing battle for the sanctity of the unborn, to the present war against the forces of Islamism. Those principles will guide the Republican Party through the twenty-first century, and beyond. And we believe the GOP must rededicate itself to the idea of individual freedom – of being the party that believes not in government mandated parity, which wields the power of the bureaucracy to force a false equality of outcome, but in a level playing field for all Americans regardless of race, class, or creed – ensuring an equal opportunity to compete, succeed, and thrive.

The Republican Party must reclaim its rightful mantle as the leading champion of Freedom of Choice.

People must be free to decide how to direct their lives for themselves, and then be responsible for their choices.

On education, Republicans believe you must be free to choose how you want to educate your children. Government should not stand in the way of your choice, whether in the form of home schooling, government schooling, charter schools, vouchers to leave a failing school for a thriving school, or other opportunities.

On healthcare, Republicans should embrace an end to regulatory regimes that prevent citizens from buying healthcare across state lines. Republicans should embrace reforms that allow the free market to play a greater role in health care, not a lesser role. Republicans should embrace total portability of health insurance so workers can be free to choose a new job without fear of losing their insurance.

On taxes, Republicans should embrace the Republican Study Committee plan for an alternate flat tax. If you want to go through the regular 1040 process with itemized deductions, etc., do it. If you want to bypass that route, file a postcard return based on a flat tax — the taxpayer’s choice.

On energy, Republicans, including our Presidential nominee, should embrace every option. You want nuclear power? Republicans should favor that choice. You want to use the resources we have instead of buying it from our enemies? Republicans support legislation to allow us to drill here and now. You want methanol and other biofuels? Republicans should break down trade barriers that prevent the importation of ethanol and Republicans should break down subsidies that raise the price of food stuffs in the name of producing corn based ethanol and other biofuels. Republicans should be in favor of letting consumers decide which light bulbs consumers want for their own homes.

On Social Security, Republicans should favor greater investment options for individuals’ retirements. If an individual wants to keep the current social security regime, we should let them. If an individual wants greater control investing their social security, we should let them have it. And above all else, because the government has already made certain choices regarding social security and medicare withholdings, Republicans should not use FICA/FUTA revenues for anything but social security and medicare/Medicaid payments respectively, in the current year.

When individuals are allowed to choose for themselves, they take an ownership interest in their choices. One of the greatest failures of the present administration has been not aggressively communicating and supporting the President’s idea of an ownership society, which contains at its core the revolutionary undercurrent that motivated America’s founding: that each individual holds within themselves the capacity and right to self-government.

This is an enormous contrast with the Democrats. In almost every area of their agenda, they are opposed to self-government. They advocate less freedom for the individual to direct their lives – they remove the Freedom of Choice from the American citizen, and give it instead to bureacracies and agencies and the many eddies and tidepools of the federal government, all managed with the efficiency and responsibility of your local Department of Motor Vehicles.

Laconia Daily Sun (P. 9)
Barnstead legislator raising funds to install a MikeWhalley memorial bench in Representatives Hall

ALTON — It was Rep. Mike Whalley’s encouragement that brought Janet Allen to the state’s House of Representatives six years ago. In honor of Whalley’s leadership, Allen thought it would be most appropriate for a memorial to the former Republican leader to be present in the House’s Chambers.

Whalley, who was the House Republican leader, was under treatment for brain cancer and died in March from complications from a fall, and Allen is beginning a campaign to raise funds for a bench to be placed in his memory in the House Chambers.

“Mike spent a great deal of time in Rep’s Hall, speaking at the [Speaker’s] Well, or sitting on the bench waiting for his turn to speak,” said Allen. She thought the best way for her to memorialize her friend and colleague would be to replace the aging bench where he spent so much time sitting and thinking about what he would say when his turn came.

Allen has been working with the House Historical Committee, which has given the concept its backing. That committee will also review the fi nal plan to ensure that the bench will be an aesthetic complement to the room.

Allen fi rst came to know Whalley when they were both members of Bishop Brady High School’s Class of 1971. They both attended UNH after graduation, but differing interests and their respective family lives cause them to drift apart, until Whalley, who had been a representative from Bow, moved to Alton.

His new address put him in House district number 5, which includes Barnstead, where Allen lives. When Allen learned of Whalley’s intention to run for one of the seats six years ago, she offered to be his campaign manager. Whalley had a better idea, and the two of them both ran, and acting as each other’s campaign manager, they both won. The same strategy produced the same results for the next two election cycles.

Allen and Whalley worked together on bills, and from 2004 to 2006, Allen was the Clerk of the Election Law Committee, which Whalley chaired.

“He was our leader, he was a natural born leader,” she said. “Mike was a great compromiser. He always felt that if two parties left the table and they were both a little unhappy, that was a good compromise.”

Show gratitude to our fallen by aiding today's veterans

ON MEMORIAL DAY, observed this coming Monday, Americans pause and pay tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to make our nation the great country that it is today. Without that sacrifice by generations upon generations of Americans since the Revolutionary War, none of us would enjoy the freedoms that we too often take for granted. 

Whether attending a Memorial Day event on the federal holiday or the traditional Memorial Day of May 30, marching in a parade, laying wreaths, building monuments or displaying our flag, we all have the opportunity to participate in events honoring those who have sacrificed so much. As Americans, it is vitally important that we recognize, honor and thank those who have fought and died to defend our Constitution and the principles upon which our nation was founded. 

The Veterans of Foreign Wars eloquently state about Memorial Day: "It's a sacred day to all war veterans. None need to be reminded of the reason that Memorial Day must be commemorated. . . . Sacrifice is meaningless without remembrance. America's collective consciousness demands that all citizens recall and be aware of the deaths of their fellow countrymen during wartime."

Or, as the American Legion also eloquently reminds us, "We are also proud of their families, who have sacrificed so much. Long after the battlefield guns have been silenced and the bombs stop exploding, the children of our foreign warriors will still be missing a parent. Spouses will be without their life partners. Parents will continue to grieve for their heroic sons and daughters that died way too early. We need to be there for them -- not just as members of The American Legion Family -- but as American citizens. Nobody can replace these fallen heroes -- especially in the eyes of their families -- but we can offer shoulders to cry on, assistance with educational expenses and assurance that their loved one's sacrifice will not be forgotten." 

As a nation, we honor the commitment of men and women who serve in harm's way by ensuring that they have every resource they need to defend themselves and prevail in battle. When these courageous soldiers return home with wounds or future health care needs, we must work to ensure that they have access to the best possible health care for physical and mental ailments. Our nation needs to modernize the educational benefits that are earned through military service. We also need to ensure that earned retirement benefits, disability compensation, and surviving spousal benefits match the commitment made by those who have served our nation. 

On an issue that involves the faith and trust of every soldier and their families, our nation must return to the Prisoners of War/Missing in Action designation, or POW/MIA. That designation has long been used by the American military for soldiers who are being held as prisoners or who are missing in action while serving our nation. Unfortunately, the POW/MIA designation has been changed to: Missing-Captured Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown. POW/MIA is the only designation recognized by the Geneva Convention. Memorial Day would be a fitting time to restore the proper POW/MIA designation. 

On Memorial Day, we must remember that were it not for the sacrifice of fallen heroes and burden their loved ones carry, we would not have the freedoms we enjoy. Their sacrifice is a vivid reminder that freedom is never free. Further, our nation must show its gratitude by forever recognizing their honor and commitment and by ensuring our soldiers and veterans have the support they deserve.

By KEVIN LANDRIGAN Staff Writer
klandrigan@nashuatelegraph.com

CONCORD – The two possible Republican candidates for governor signed a pledge that would cap state spending at the rate of inflation plus population growth.

Sen. Joseph Kenney, R-Wakefield, charged that Democratic legislative leaders and Gov. John Lynch are bent on spending the state into needing a broad-based sales or income tax.

"We are being backed into an income or sales tax by this spending," Kenney told reporters.

"They want an income tax; there is no doubt about that."

Leaders of the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition insisted the pledge is meant to dovetail with – not dilute – the vaunted pledge to veto a broad-based sales or income tax.The group is staging a drive to get a local spending-cap petition before the voters in several communities across the state, including Merrimack.

Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta said lawmakers "fleeced" taxpayers by increasing state spending by 17 percent in the two-year state budget that concludes June 30, 2009.

Asked to give an example of the excess, however, Guinta offered a proposed reform of the state retirement system that GOP gubernatorial candidate Kenney voted for earlier this month.

"That's an example of fleecing the taxpayers," Guinta said.

The Senate passed its retirement reform proposal (HB 1645), 24-0. Kenney said he voted yes only to get it to a negotiated settlement that he hopes will generate a better, final product for taxpayers.

Greetings,

Welcome to the Belknap County Republican Website. This has been established to provide an additional source of information and a tool to assist all of us in communicating our important message, that we have work to do to restore the Republican legacy of The New Hampshire Advantage.

 
You've all seen the dreadful results of the 2006 election on the national level with the Reid/Pelosi Congress. Less publicized has been that occurring in New Hampshire with the Democrat control of both houses of the legislature and the Governor's Office. Among their first "accomplishments" was a 17.5% budget increase ($475,000,000)  in conjunction with totally unrealistic revenue projections (so that it appears to be a "balanced" budget on paper). Their game plan was to defer various deadlines and hope that the impact of this will not be seen until after the 2008 election. Whether or not they can hide the magnitude of this deficit that long, the ramifications on the New Hampshire way of life is alarming.

Please visit this site often and take heed from what you find here. Please participate in adding to the critical information that needs to be communicated, not just to Belknap County Repubicans, but to all in the County. And I invite you to participate in the work necessary to restore The New Hampshire Advantage!  

Warm regards,

Frank Tilton, Chairman Belknap County GOP Committee
(603) 528 8466
franktilton@gmail.com