Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, November 20, 2006
Michael Barone :: Townhall.com Columnist
Wanted: New ideas
by Michael Barone
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Back when Republicans were winning elections in the 1980s, Tip O'Neill used to say that it was because Democratic policies made a lot of people rich enough to vote Republican. Republicans who are saying that the party needs to go back to the principles of 1994 or Ronald Reagan should keep O'Neill's lesson in mind: Successful public policies render moot the issues that bring parties to power. They won't keep winning unless they address new issues.

With that in mind, let's examine the successful Republican policies since their takeover of Congress in 1994.

Some of these were on economic issues, addressable only at the federal level. The big budget deficits of the early 1990s were eliminated by the Clinton tax increases and by the one-year standstill in spending the Republicans forced on Bill Clinton in 1995. With George W. Bush in office, Republicans produced tax cuts that kicked the economy out of recession and gave us robust, low-inflation economic growth.

Another public-policy success was welfare reform, forced on Clinton by the Republicans in 1996. But note that that success came after, and was inspired by, welfare reform in the states, started by Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin in 1987 and followed by many Republicans and also some Democrats.

Still another public-policy success of the 1990s -- crime control -- was almost entirely the work of big-city mayors, starting with Rudy Giuliani in New York. On crime, Clinton and the Republican Congress were no more than interested and occasionally helpful bystanders.

Some public-policy successes of the Bush years have been criticized by many conservatives. One was the education accountability measures in the No Child Left Behind Act. Here, Bush and a bipartisan coalition were federalizing reforms initiated in the states, by governors like Bush himself, his brother Jeb Bush in Florida and Democrat Jim Hunt in North Carolina.

Then there was the controversial Medicare prescription drug law pushed through in a three-hour roll call in 2003. Many conservatives criticize the creation of a new federal entitlement. Bush's argument was that there was going to be a prescription drug benefit sooner or later and that it was better to have a Republican version that provided for competition and choice, rather than government ukase.

The bill also allowed the expansion of health savings accounts, which have the potential to change private-sector health insurance the way that Section 401(k) of the tax code has changed private-sector pensions. HSAs are expanding rapidly, and polls show seniors highly pleased with the prescription drug plans they've chosen -- and competition is holding down costs.

To be sure, this is big-government conservatism. But who thinks we're going to get rid of big government? Bush's approach has been to enhance choice and accountability, to rely more on markets and less on government commands.

It's the only realistic conservatism for America today.

Note that conservative policy successes have taken some issues off the political table. Republicans won a lot of suburban districts in 1994 on the issues of crime, welfare and taxes. Crime and welfare are not major issues anymore. And the Democrats' obvious unwillingness to raise taxes substantially after their defeat in 1994 took taxes off the table, too -- though the issue may come back in 2008, when voters could face a choice between Republicans who promise to extend the tax cuts that expire in 2010 and Democrats who may be eager to let those taxes go back up again. That might switch some of those suburban districts back toward Republicans.

What issues could Republicans raise in 2008? They would do well to look to the states, and especially to Florida, where Jeb Bush has enacted innovative policies on school choice and healthcare. They could look at some Democrats, as well, like Tennessee's Gov. Phil Bredesen, who has been reforming an overly generous Medicaid program.

They could highlight the proposal of Republican Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. They could consider Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's proposal to get lower-income workers to save and invest with tax credits for IRA contributions. Republicans aren't going to win elections with the new ideas of 1980, 1994 or 2000. They need new ideas for 2008.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Michael Barone is a Fox News Channel contributor and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. He is Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner and a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Michael Barone's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Good Ideas
but we can't accomplish those goals without a larger majority than we has this last time.

Of course, we would have had enough votes if it weren't for RINOs who constantly sided with the Libsters.

John McCain is an example of the problem. Being a "war hero" he was given the benefit of the doubt and admired for years. But I think conservatives are waking up to where McCain's true loyalties lie.

The picture of Newt Gingrich above reminded me how much I like him, and I wish that he could be President. But if you think the Lefties hated Bush, wait until you experience Gingrich Derangement, which will erupt the moment he takes office. The Lefties have already villified Mr. Newt, and have harmed his chances I fear.

On the other hand, ANY candidate we put forward will meet the same Leftie/Media machine that cooperates to further their agenda. Any Republican, no matter how squeeky-clean will be subjected to the same kind of misinformation campaign we have been witnessing since George W. Bush defeated Al Gore fairly and squarely.

I have said this before, but I have come to the conclusion that the only way we can truly win is to take back the News Media, the Entertainment Industry, the Courts and the Educational System. We don't need to control them entirely, but we need a greater presence in all of these American institutions.

We also have to stop being so gentlemanly that we fail to point out the bias and lies being spewed constantly by the Left. We must stand up to their nastiness and hatred, and not play this "nicer than thou game" which ends up marginalizing us.

BTW
This is a shameless plug for my newest post on my blog. Stop by and visit: it is all about Leftie Gone Wild.

ISSUES?
What is wrong with regular Conservative issues? They haven't gone out of style, so why invent something new? Here are two issues any candidate can start with and be guaranteed public support across party lines:

First; Protect our borders. Put folks who employ illegal immigrants in jail. If an illegal immigrant gets arrested for any crime, deport him/her the next day. No amnesy; period. That will cure the illegal immigrant problem.

Second; Reduce taxes. It's an old fashioned Conservative idea, but it works. While your at it, maybe change the way Americans pay their taxes.

That should do for a start.

New Ideas?
Conservatives don't need new ideas. They need to implement more fully existing ideas by learning how to sell them.

An idiot like Karl Marx got entire countries to put his foolish concepts into action. Surely, fabulous ideas like reducing government spending (and not just slowing it) and taxes deserve an equal opportunity.

Let's start with two simple ideas that could start at the state level and then move to the Federal Level:

1. A (State then Federal) Constitutional amendment that a) pegs spending to a percentage of the GDP and c) gradually lowers that percentage (20 percent would get my vote);

2. A constitutional amendment to simplify all taxation at the Federal Level to consumption/sales taxes, with zero exceptions.

Clearly, there is something systemically wrong with our system when it turns Conservatives into liberals over time.

Our founding fathers worried greatly about dividing power within government but failed to put checks on government growth.


How about America?
The Republican Party took a thumping in the last election because they've turned their backs on the American people. Although the Democrats are not much of an alternative, their electoral success was an indication of the growing frustration of the voters.

While there isn't a real constituency for "less government" Republicans can regain their majority if they focus on the hot button cultural issues -- affirmative action, gay marriage, and welfare reform. Of course the Republicans must entirely disinfect the every germ of Karl Rove and George Bush from their new strategy. Welcoming illegal immigrants and starting an unwinnable war are not routes to political victory.

Democrats have lost the support of the average American not because they are critics of the war in Iraq or are "soft" on defense, but because they represent elitist and secular values on a wide range of issues. This is where Democrats are weakest and where Republicans must hammer away.






It's Time To Grow UP
What about a campaign titled It's Time To Grow Up? You could also call it The Sixties Are Over. We've had enough of the Flower Child Agenda; we all know by now that we've got genetalia and what they look like and what their names are; we've heard enough "WHADDAWEWANT...WENDAWEWANNIT..." and "Hey Hey! Ho Ho! [Fill in the blank] has got to go!" We've seen enough Its All About Me, and by far we're finished for good with "You're Not The Boss Of Me."

There is a national longing for adulthood -- for people to stand up and take responsibility for something besides sitting on their fat heinies in Mommy's basement playing Halo and posting on chat boards -- or creating more and more dirty movies, uninteresting soap operas, and "music" that's essentially grunts and stomps punctuated by the same two boring words endlessly repeated. Nobody is shocked any more by any of this stuff. We're bored.

It's time to elect people who will take as their motto "Take a bath, cut your hair, pack a lunch put on your clothes and GO TO WORK."

And its well past time for people to stop separating themselves into Generations and ignoring one another. The saddest thing I have seen in a long time was a commercial for an electronic teddy bear -- showing a little boy alone in his bedroom in a pool of light, having his bedtime story read to him by a soulless, programmed robot with the appearance of caring about him. Mama, no doubt, is either out on the town with her latest "Squeeze" or at her desk under a mound of paperwork; Daddy is long gone, and the Guatamalan Nanny can't read.

I envision a campaign similar to "Its Morning In America" that would turn on "America, The Sixties Are Over and Today is the First Day of Your Adult Life."

It's Time to Grow Up
Amen to everything AudiR10. I've said it as: Most of the time adults are not rolling around in bed, they are up and working.

mediscare drug program
Shameful big government garbage.

Above 60 crowd is the richest age segment of our population.

Average senior spending is 2 dollars a day-such a hardship! They might have to give up their cellular phone...

Its just pathetic when government intrusion into healthcare drives up prices then the same people supposedly ride in on their horses to 'save us' from the market. Its even more pathetic when people actually believe that stuff.

I love it
The idea of 60's people growing up and stop throwing their inflated weight around in degrading our culture is just great. In tearing down our values and institutions, they have left a void. Republicans can fill that void by standing for what they have always stood for before they too became corrupt and power hungary.

GOP "Stay the Course" Strategy
GOP “Stay the Course” Strategy killing the Party
http://www.controlcongress.com

I found this comment on the PP from Jace Walden on a thread. Jace hit on the frustration I have been hearing from the Grass Root supporters of the GOP.

By re-electing the leaders that lead the GOP to its most crushing defeat ever, congressional republicans have shown that they have absolutely no desire to change their ways. Sure, they’ll talk the good talk about “small government” and what it means to be “conservative”, but in the end, it’s the same leaders who brought us the largest expansion of the Federal Bureaucracy in U.S. history.

They had a chance to change. They had a chance to elect Michael Steele as RNC Chair. But no, they chose a status quo Senator, Mel Martinez. They had a chance to elect Mike Pence as Minority Leader, but no, the chose the status quo John Boehner “I don’t even know who Mark Foley is” Boehner. They had a chance to elect ANYBODY but Trent Lott in the Senate…but no, they chose Trent “Give me the Pork” Lott.

I guess our national Republicans really did buy into that “stay the course” crap, because that is exactly what they’re doing with the party.

It’s already statistically impossible to win back the Senate in ‘08, just based on the small number of winnable seats. It’s unlikely the GOP will take back 30 seats in the house. AND, it’s probable that because of its lack of leadership and values, the GOP will LOSE the presidency in ‘08.

We can keep making excuses and keep blaming all of our problems on Pelosi and the “liberal democrats”, or we can demand a change from our own party. As it stands right now though, we stand to lose big in 2008.


Big Gov.
If big gov is an inevitability and it continues to grow, where does it stop?
I think there is quite a large constituency invitro for significantly reducing the size of govt.
If we could find a way to attach the growth of govt. directly to people's pocketbooks, they'd know where they stand on big govt. every time they had to pay for it.
We need to go back to the future and redefine the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause into what the framer's intended. That would be a big step and would take a generation of effort.
We need so called conservative think tanks to commune together each year and pick a dog to fight that would chip away at the idea that the government we have is operating inside it's bounds. I can't believe they can't find one issue each year to take a whack at.
Barone's comment on the size of government is a capitulation to the principle that the Constitution is a boundary. What a disaster of a comment he made there.

Mountain Rose, the GOP doesn't need ...
... excuses (RINOs who constantly sided with the Libsters), it needs leadership. Strong leaders are able to keep dissenters, like the RINOs, in line, but the GOP leadership in Congress (with no help from the White House) looked like they were herding cats.

I had no confidence in the old leadership (which has become the new leadership), and I believe that any success in '08 will be the result of Democrat blunders (the Waxman-Conyers factor) and the grace of God.

Rugged Individualist . . .
posted that he favors, "A (State then Federal) Constitutional amendment that a) pegs spending to a percentage of the GDP."

That sounds good. If passed it would work O.K. until the congress exceeded it. There has to be legislation enacted to enforce the constitution. There are no "constitution police" that run around enforcing the bill of rights.

The devil's in the details.

Congress cannot and will not be held accountable for spending the taxpayers' money. Therefor, they wouldn't pass any legislation to enforce a constitutional budgetary spending limit.

Another example: Say you passed a constitutional amendment that required all cars to get 100 MPG. How would that be enforced? Arrest manufacturers if they couldn't design a car like that?

The reason constitutional amendments don't grow on trees is that it would ruin our system of free-market capitalism by attempting to do MORE governing instead of LESS.

Big government conservatism...
...IS NOT CONSERVATISM!!!!

That bunch of crap is what got the GOP into the fix that it's in now...politicians and pundits that think that being the Democrat Party-Lite is the way to go! Republican voters, the American public at large, and no conservative really wants to see this type of government expansion. Expanding the G is anathema to the core beliefs of the conservative base, and the propensity of the GOP to take part in this type of G expansion is one major reason why the viters rebelled against them!

No, it is not time for the GOP to adopt the same policies as the Dems, only on a smaller scale. It is time for the GOP to get back to it's small G, conservatitve roots...or it can get usd to a lot more electoral thumpings!

Mike needs to learn Demographics
Every year the number of hardcore Democratic voters grows due to high populatio growth in the black and hispanic communities. That means that the Republicans have to gain a higher percentage of the white voters every election. The 2006 election should indicate that the Republicans have not slide below the the percentage of white voters that it needs to win.

The future will only get worse. With high birthrates in the black community and high immigration of likely future Democratic voters, eventually the Republicans are going to be buried under a landslide of black and brown voters and there is nothing they can do about it.

Does anyone here believe that proposing fewer government service and lower taxes is going to get the votes of blacks, browns, asians, retirees, or educators?

The real question should be: What will the US be like as a single party state with the Democrats in control? If DC or Mass is any example people should be very afraid.

Change tactics, not Strategy
Tactics in warfare, and to paraphrase, politics is warfare by other means , always have to change as conditions on the battlefield do, but strategy should stay constant unless you have made a serious mistake. Conservatives do have to adjust, and seek new areas to apply their core beliefs, but these should stay steady,and limited government is FUNDAMENTAL. Yes, a "small" government is probably no longer feasible for lots of reasons, but limiting the power of government is ALWAYS possible, and I think Bush has tried to do this by incorporating more private initiatives, and market mechanisms into policy. The day Conservatives accept "Big" government, the paternalistic, overarching and all powerful entity envisioned by Liberals, is the day Conservatism exists no more.

New Ideas?

.....Barone...

.....Here's a novel idea...how about promising to enforcing our laws?...

.....US CODE 8 SECTION 1325 makes it against the law to enter the Country illegally, punishable with fines and jail time...

.....US CODE 8 SECTION 1324 makes it against the law for any person to hire/harbor or transport an illegal alien, punishable by 10 years in jail and 20,000 fine per illegal alien etc....

.....how about promising to find a way to make the line-item veto pass Constitutional muster by proposing a new Amendment?...

.....How about a proposal to repeal the 16th Amendment and to eliminate the IRS and replace income tax with a Fair Tax that would collect all the lost revenue that goes to paying illegals under the table?...

.....Before we come up with a lot of new ideas how about trying to make a lot of the good old ideas work?.....COLOSSUS

Realistic Conservatism
Have we seen the passing of the term "compassionate conservatism". Perhaps this term has rightfully taken on the pejorative connotation that is so richly deserves. Barone appears to be field-testing the new replacement term for "compassionate conservatism" -- "realistic conservatism". Like its predecessor, "realistic conservatism" is not in the least bit conservative.

Taking bad liberal ideas (and yes they are all bad) and giving them "Republican versions" is not the answer to saving conservatism. Even if well-intentioned and minimal in size and scope, Democrats and liberals have proven themselves more than capable of transforming "Republican versions" of "Realistic Conservatism" into growing, snarling, nasty behemoths capable of trampling well beyond their founding purpose.

Throwing in the Towel?
Mr. Barone offer this: "To be sure, this is big-government conservatism. But who thinks we're going to get rid of big government?" and

"It's the only realistic conservatism for America today."

Sorry, but I don't (and can't) buy that because it sounds to me like admitting defeat. If we don't "get rid of big government", how do we (or, rather, our grandchildren) pay for the entitlements of the future?

I think there are possibilities for tsking the "..two or three big ideas" approach. Create a platform, continue to publicize and push it, and attempt to appeal to the moderate middle class of both parties. plus indepentents. Tax reform, smaller government, energy independence come to mind.

Here's another crazy idea: Enforce the laws of this country...how do you think that would play in the hinderlands?

ideas..
here is a god idea for you:


http://www.giveusbacknewyork.com

Issue for 2008
All legislation to be posted on the internet for 24 hours before a vote can take place. So the earmarks can't be inserted at the last minute. Also so the bill can come under public scrutiny, if only for a day. The pajama bloggers would tear into the worst of the pork, the fat to be removed for the bill to pass.

During that 24 hour "Public Comment" period, any spending can be removed by a majority without changing the original scheduled time for the final floor vote. But if any new changes are added, then it takes a new 24 hour cycle of Public Comment to become eligible for a vote.

This approach also prevents what happened with that Prescription Drug Legislation, which was steam-rollered through with questionable ethics.

Death by compromise
The idea that Bush ahd to enact some medicare prescription coverage to prevent an even more sweeping Dem plan is a recipe for disaster.

I am usually in favor of compromise as pushing all-or-nothing solutions rarely resutls in victory. But that compromise has to be a compromise in the right direction.

Bush's compromise was a serious misstep. By admitting that the government should be providing prescription coverage and putting in place the administratve tools to do so, he just set the stage for future increases in the benefit. He also set the stage for extending this "logic" to other coverage, such as catastrophic health care, preventative care, etc.

In short, compromises should not concede the opponent's point, but should be made solely to get at least aprt of what one wants. In the prescription coverage compromise we got nothing we wanted, but gave the Dems half (or more) of what they did.

ANYONE FOR POLITICS?
America has problems that need fixing and there is a lot of brainpower on this site being wasted casting insults at each other. That brainpower would be better spent searching for solutions to problems. We also have a lot of grassroots manpower with computers, printers, FAX machines, friends and neighbors.

Many of America's problems cross party lines.
We could select a problem, everyone spend a day or so mulling that problem and together we can Author an articulate list of all salient facets of the problem. Then get a Blog to post a letter we can mail, FAX and e-mail and make phone calls to Legislators in an effort to solve the problem. We can even recruit volunteer help by going to Kinkos, OfficeMax, etc., and having 100 copies printed for $5 and using the family to distribute them door to door while going for
an exercise walk.

As an instance, our Illegal Immigration problem.
We could start with something like;
Illegal entry is degrading our schools and medical facilities, clogging our Courts and jails so American citizens are denied timely justice. All this Multi-Lingual stuff adds extra tax burden without benefit to taxpayers.

When Illegals can't pay their medical expenses the cost is divided among those who can pay thus raising the cost of medical treatment and medical insurance to a bankrupting level for many Americans. When Illegals enter
our schools without command of our language they require extra tax funds to tutor them and they slow down the entire class thus degrading the quality of our children's education.

If we need immigrants then admit those on the legal waiting list first then admit however many we need in a lawful way so we know who is entering America and why.
Both Democrats and Republicans can roll up their sleeves on this one.
Everyone contribute intellect to the cause, get a Blog to cull & assemble the input and we all start working on legislators with a joint effort that's hard to ignore.

This would give the people some input into Government instead of special interest lobbyists
calling all the shots. Seem workable to anyone?
It might cause others to come to TH with their ideas and input.
TH would indeed be America's Town Hall.

Barone off base
The genius of Reagan and the Contract with America was in simplicity. Define a limited objective of core values, goals, and ideas, then concentrate on them without distraction. Sell them to the American electorate.

Modern Reps are so busy running around trying to be everything to everybody -- like Dems -- that they lose focus, the message gets lost in the static, and we end up with Dem not-so-Lite.

It's ugly.

Against New Ideas
Conservatives by definition, are for OLD ideas. Ideas like a smaller, less powerful Federal government putting the issues of the day and governance back into local hands. Issues like stable currency, protective trade policy, and minimal involvement in the affairs of the world-at-large.

Maybe Republicans need new ideas; conservatives have old ideas to fall back on.

Hillary and Recession
Until a major recession happens while a Democrat presides in the White House, do not expect any worthwhile conservative policies to be enacted. Conservatism is exhausted at present, led to a dead end by George W. Bush. What conservatives need down the road is what FDR and the Democrats received in 1933- almost total political power combined with a discredited opposition.

As for ex-liberal and, presumably, ex-Democrat Michael Barone, he does not really know the conservative heart and soul. What little he understands conservatives, he hates what we love. We take his advice at our peril.

A Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency may rejuvenate a sick, diseased, brain-dead Republican Party.

Drinking Age - Libertarian objective
How about removing federal disincentives to lowering the drinking age to 18?

As part of a 'treat adults like adults' it would philosophically fit with a conservative agenda. It is also part of a nanny-state intervention college students and young adults understand.

superdestroyer
True, blacks and hispanics are breeding at a faster rate than whites. It's also true that every year there are more young, white libs.

BUT, it's also true that evry year more blacks and hispanics are moving into the middle class and adopting a more conservative outlook. When they get out of the taken care of class and into the taking care of themselves class they start noticing how much is being taken from them.

They also see how the life of living on the edge of poverty, being supported entirely by government charity, is damaging to all concerned. They also see the wisdom in the statements of Bill Cosby and of having Clarence Thomas, Candolisa Rice, Thomas Sowell, and others black conservatives as role models.

Instead of voting for those who will take more away from them they will start looking to those who well allow them to direct more of their own earnings where they wany, like education and a better life for their children.

An old yankee saying goes something like... if you're under 35 and not liberal you don't have a heart. If you're over 35 and not conservative you don't have a brain...

It takes the minorities you listed a few years to work their way into the middle class and every year the total rises. I don't think the conservative side is ready to throw in the towel just yet.

Dave from Connecticut
I have been living in the Lone Star State for almost 32 years. I was here when the State agreed with you and lowered the drinking age to 18. The number of alcohol related accidents and deaths rose dramaticly.

After a few years they returned the drinking age to 21.

Between my wife and I we have six kids, all above legal drinking age. Because of this I realize the number of 18 - 21 year olds drinking is high but they have to do a litte work to get alcohol. Making it easier for them will only raise the death toll again.

There is one good side to your agrument. Instead of ordering the spring break tapes to watch young college students doing stupid things we could just go down to the local pubs.

Houston: Got issues?
As M. Barone hints at and the first comment illustrates that we should be looking to issues first rather than popular candidate – and what issues they offer in tow. Candi’s are always going to posture themselves around issues.

Correct. The GOP needs to prioritize the issues first.. . filling in the blank with the best suited candi. As the party comes to terms with direction it can set priorities; though they are not likely what's on the plate in houses now or to many politicos. Barone does well himself laying out past priorities, many are still there - size of government for one.

The point is that we nust have canditates conform(posture) to those demands rather than us conform to theirs. I expect that whatever, such as illegal immigration, they will attempt to marginalize those any way they can before 08, leaving themselves free to dictate both issues and candidates. How would that work in the private sector? Lets interview for “popular person”, then expect him to deal with specific needs of the job, 2nd.

New Ideas? You Want New Ideas?
Well, here's some new ideas:

1. Secure the Border;
2. Enforce the EXISTING laws against hiring illegals;
3. NAIL employers who hire illegals;
4. Enforce the EXISTING laws against revealing classified or sensitive information and;
5. NAIL people or institutions who do so reveal;
6. Indict and Prosecute people who knowingly give aid and comfort to the enemy;
7. Cease foreign aid to (a)France, (b)Germany (c) any other country that has been taking our money for the last 50 years and stabbing us in the back;
8. Give the Public Education Systems back to the local governments.
9. Take the ACLU off its free ride.

If you 'Pubs need any more new ideas, I will be ready to help you out. But first try these for awhile.

Over the Hills
Derek “Hillary and Recession: Until a major recession happens while a Democrat presides in the White House, do not expect any worthwhile conservative policies to be enacted.”

What a marvelous idea: Hillary’s Recession – even more appropriate, Hill’s Recesion for short. Yes probably and coming from the empire of Hillary, NY. We were told we ain't seen nothin yet.

Buck
AMEN! I suggest we start with number 9.

The whole list would make a great new contract with America.

Free Ride for ACLU

.....Buck...

.....The ACLU gets it's free ride from Law 42 US CODE SECTION 1988...

.....To repeal this law would require a strong conservative President and a super majority in both Houses of Conservative Republicans...think we will ever get there?.....COLOSSUS

HOW ABOUT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY!
“TAXCUT AND SPEND” REPUBLICANS have absolutely no fiscal responsibility or accountability! The last time we had a balanced budget and pay-as-you-go legislation Bill Clinton was President and the Democrats instituted these Congressional controls. So much for Bush mythology on who has conservative values. Furthermore, Bush’s supply-side economics has not conserved our nation’s economic future.

SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS… has sold our kids and grandkids down the river!

George Bush’s $3 trillion dollar tax giveaway to the rich has been a disaster for average Americans. Supply-side (trickle-down) economics is a bogus theory promoted by those who benefit from it. In a mature capitalist system, supply side never rules, it’s always the demand side of the equation that governs growth and well-being. Think about the 1930s Depression, General Motors had plenty of supply, but demand evaporated.

Previous U.S. recessions have been cured with only $200 billion in tax cuts targeted to the middle class, because the consumer (the great middle class) spends that tax cut and primes the economic pump. But George Bush has raised the debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay from almost $6 trillion to almost $9 trillion for this current recovery, which is uniquely without wage gains, and which has shrunk the middle class that makes America strong and great.

Corporations (the supply side) are now loaded with cash, but there’s no place to spend it because they don’t see any demand. So many corporations are using that cash to buy back their stock – WOW, isn’t supply side wonderful in how it fulfills America’s needs? As the rich-poor divide increases, we’re headed toward previous shining examples of trickle-down economics: South America of the recent past and feudalism in the Middle Ages (South America and feudalism also had no wage gains).

BrianR
I guess no one is interested.
I had thought you could make an "Idea Box" on your Blog, cull out the bad wording, cut & past the good wording into something polished we could each send to enough Legislators to get their attention.

I thought after we did this a few times the Legislators would swing by TH now & then to see what was brewing.

baseballdoc
Would it be possible to amend the law instead of repeal it?

Dismissing smaller government
Barone's complete dismissal of reducing the size of government, the best idea there is regarding government, illustrates exactly why Republicans lost. It would take decades to undo all the damage done to freedom by government since the New Deal, so there will be enough reform ideas for at least that long.

Let's start with holding spending flat for 2 years, abolishing the department of education that has destroyed education in this country, getting the central government out of health care so prices can drop and quality can improve, and we can phase out all the entitlements.

We'll abolish the income tax and all payroll taxes and adopt the FairTax. When people keep 100% of their paychecks, they can afford to pay for their own retirement and health care, which will dramatically lower costs and improve services.

We'll arrest employers of illegal aliens to stem the flood of illegals coming into the country. We can increase the number of legal immigrants for the benefit of the nation.

We can defeat our enemies. That idea seems to have been lost on all politicians in the last 15 years, so it's not new, but it's a good one. I like it way better than fighting with no end in sight. I like it better than catch and release. I like it better than surrounding our enemies, then letting them go so they can kill more Americans another day.

There's a million reformist ideas. Republicans and Barone are just dismissing them, and that's why Republicans got spanked. Republicans need to tap into the great unrepresented libertarian mainstream of America Reagan tapped instead playing tug-of-war over the tiny middle between big-government Democrats and big-government Republicans.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/

Kraut on Demographics
John Kerry received almost the same level of black support that George McGovern received. It has been more than a generation and the Republicans have made no headway in gaining black voters. The Hispanic number is actually going more Democratic, no less.

The biggest problem is when 20 somethings in the US decide that the Republicans are irrelevent. There will very few new Republicans that are needed for candidiate development. Can you image any 20 something in Maine, Mass, or RI wanting to get involved with the Republican party in 2008 when they have so little influence and power? That is what we have to look forward to in the future because the Republican have so screwed it up in the recent past.


War on terror
Neither Barone nor any posters have remarked on the WOT and its influence on the election outcome. It seems pretty clear that the negative drumbeat from the dems and their MSM public relations agents undermined the administration's efforts in the middle east from the get go. Since most hard-working sorts dont get much beyond the headlines and the nightly news why should anyone be surprised that Bush, this war and the republicans are all wrong, have misled us, have done nothing right and have got to go? Not to forgive the republicans for all their obvious sins mentioned throughout this thread, and I don't for a minute, the anti WOT negativism played a major role in this election blowout!

Barone throws in the Towel
Obviously Barone has given up on the concept of smaller government. Like Doug Wilson, apparently he's made himself comfortable with the concept that principles be dammed, just so long as the Republicans have the Power.

Unfortunately, Socialism sells, just so long as you don't call it "socialism." So I suppose if a Republican gives us three train-loads of Socialism, doubles the size of government, but throws in the occasional bone such as "health savings accounts", then Barone is one happy camper.

Just so long as it's Socialism from a Republican, not a Democrat.

Big Government may indeed be inevitable. I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. But regardless of the inevitability, I sure as heck won't vote for it. I won't vote for Big Government Conservatives.

Shoot, it's inevitable to die. That don't mean you go play on the highway.

TalkingHeads-Makin' Me Nuts!
I'm astounded at these talking-heads like Mr. Barone. I know he's a brilliant man. But not once in his above article did he recognize the illegal problem or the out of control sourthern border. Middle America has conditioned itself to get up every morning and, like Atlas, lift up the burden of big gov't entitlements and other Pork (like the Bridge to Nowhere) and carry that burden around all day. They pay for it. But they have drawn a line in the sand. Those entitlements/pork are strictly for Americans. Not for the 12-20 million illegals that are here sucking up our tax dollars. Middle America did not agree to carry that burden. And that burden is breaking their backs. Remember, Middle America supported the President in the War effort and sent their Sons/Daughters off to fight. But when they asked for help with sealing the southern border and protecting our national sovereignty (something they cherish by-the-way) the President coldly and insultingly turned his back on them. It was Political Suicide. The poor losing Congressmen/Senators just got in the line of fire between the voters and the President. They were casualties of a no-confidence vote. Not totally their fault.

Now I'm not saying that Middle America doesn't care about out of control spending but it is a lesser issue to them in that they have conditioned themselves to carrying that tax burden. Yes, they'd like to have their burden lightened. And in time hope/expect to see that. But they needed the immediate help that sealing the southern border and deporting the worst of the illegal population would've given them. And the knowledge that once deported these illegals wouldn't be back across the border in 30 days burdening our society again. Middle America didn't get what it pleaded for. Instead they got tuned-out by our President and the Republican hierarchy. Politics 101, Rule 1: Don't ignore, insult, disrespect or poke your finger in the eye of your core/base supporters. Its Polical Suicide.

We desparately need more in depth analysis from folks like Mr. Barone. We need to see the real causes isolated and then magnified. We do not need more vague generalizations. Thats all we're getting now. How can we, who call ourselves Republicans, get back on the right track if we refuse to isolate and confront our true, root problems? DD
http://streetlevel.townhall.com

Phony Barone
There he goes again! Is there anyone in the media establishment who is more hypocritical than Phony Barone?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.