The GOP leaders have reportedly come up with a list of 10 positions, for which agreement on at least 8 would be necessary to receive RNC backing and/or funding:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
Quite frankly, I find this whole list poorly written. For instance, the first point confounds a number of different issues: the budget and aggregate deficit, taxes, and size of government. A fiscal conservative could rightly insist that some tax modifications may be necessary to close the operational and aggregate debts, but that the burden should be spread in an equitable way (e.g., a small value-added tax).
Second, I find that the RECORDS/PERFORMANCE of the candidates need to be considered in addition to POSITIONS. The fact of the matter is that under the last Republican President and Republican Congress, we expanded the operational and aggregate deficits, Medicare entitlements, and discretionary spending (including earmarks). I have been critical of Obama's rhetoric not reflected in his performance; the same kind of criticism can be applied to Republican incumbents. Talk is cheap.
Third, I want to see more of a commitment towards resolving significant problems versus kicking the can down the road for future generations, including solving reserve problems for social security and Medicare and repairing the nation's infrastructure.
Fourth, we need to see more of a pro-business growth agenda, including globally competitive business taxes, incentives for savings and investment, immigration reform, and moderating the tax and regulatory burden, particularly on small business.
Fifth, we should emphasis support for a strong dollar and inflation hawks in the Federal Reserve.
Sixth, we need to halt the erosion in traditional American values, including hard work, civility, personal responsibility, self-reliance, and frugality. Enough of Democratic scope creep and moral hazard of socializing personal expenses of lower-income Americans. This also applies to government subsidies to businesses.
I would also like to see less of an emphasis on what I consider bumper stick issues like guns, abortion, and illegal immigration and more emphasis on pragmatic, good faith negotiations with the opposition. Take, for instance, the statement of supporting immigration reform by denying amnesty for illegal immigration. First of all, the immigration debate is more than illegal entry via the US/Mexico border, and the proposals I've seen to date are not "amnesty" but require the payments of fines, a return to their home countries, background screening, and being placed at the end of the existing immigration wait list.
Pro-immigration conservatives, like myself, argue that we need to attack the fundamental causes for illegal entry, principally including an inadequate infrastructure for orderly visiting worker flow and a viable legal temporary foreign worker program (opposed, of course, by unions). The immigration compromise of 2007 also included more emphasis on merit-based criteria (e.g., education, professional or entrepreneurial skills and English fluency), an end to existing chained immigration (where relatives, regardless of merit-based qualifications, qualify for eventual citizenship, their relatives in turn qualify, etc.), and a long-overdue revision of dysfunctional national quotas, unfairly restricting applicants from more populous nations.
However, I think we also need to speak to and honor the tremendous contributions and sacrifices made by Latinos, their patriotism, hard work ethic, traditional moral values and deep Christian faith. We must reject narrow-minded, reductionist, dishonorable characterizations that question the motivations and undermine the dignity and respect of Americans and foreign visitors
Abortion and gun rights mostly deal with Constitutional issues and hence indirectly factor into confirmation hearings for federal jurists (but for the most part, nominees generally refuse to respond to hypothetical questions on these issues); I do think it might be appropriate to recommend the confirmation of judges whom respect the separation of powers (i.e., the primacy of the legislative branch to enact laws) and have a core commitment to the Bill of Rights .
In short, the problem I have deals with the arbitrary nature of the questionnaire and the relative scoring of various issues. I can't help but wonder if this is motivated by the recent disastrous nomination of Dede Scozzafava in NY-23, clearly out of step with the mainstream Republican Party, but I do realize strident media conservatives like Ann Coulter for years have been trying to purge the Republican Party of more pragmatic conservatives, like Colin Powell, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. The ability of Republicans to compromise is a virtue, not a betrayal of principle.
How do we avoid nominations like Scozzafava's in the future? Let the Republican voters make the decision in primaries. If desired, administer questionnaires to announced candidates and publish them for the benefit of primary voters. But the last thing we need is some codified version of media conservative groupthink; that does not help the GOP attract independent and moderate voters that they need to win in purple and blue states. Have we learned nothing from the Democrats, whom retook both houses of Congress in 2006? They didn't do it by running progressive candidates in purple or red districts and states; they did it by running Blue Pups Dogs and, in one case, a pro-life Democrat (Bob Casey). Next year, in order to regain the NY Senate seat now held by Kirsten Gillibrand, the GOP may need to run a more pragmatic candidate like former Governor George Pataki or former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Democratic Governors Express Concern Over Health Care "Reform"
Keep in mind a point I just raised in the prior segment: Democratic-sponsored federal government scope creep: in particular, the states and the federal government have generally split costs associated with Medicaid, the government-run health care program for poor or lower-income Americans. Whereas much attention has been paid to so-called competition of the public option plan, there is a stealth type of government takeover of the health insurance sector, namely by raising the eligibility income (or other expansions) for Medicaid and other government programs. The Democratic governors have two principal concerns: first, they are worried about covering their share of any Medicaid expansion forced on them by federal fiat; second, they clearly wish that the federal Democrats were putting a higher priority on jobs-related legislation.
I think they lose either way. Democratic make-work legislation is a grossly inefficient, corrupt way to set up a job lottery system, benefiting the select few, not the many. Progressives will never be able to understand what drives job creation in the private sector; labor, taxes and indirect taxes (e.g., regulatory costs) are significant costs (among others, including infrastructure). Job creators don't like uncertainty in their environment--things like the government suddenly changing the rules in the middle of the game and saddling them with unexpected new costs.
Political Cartoon
Cartoonist Steve Kelley points out that Obama has let the insurgents know (so they can plan their activities accordingly) the limit of his commitment to the "real" war on terror.
Christmas Musical Interlude: Bob Dylan's "Must Be Santa"
Well, most of the material I've picked to date has been previously released. This single is from an American music legend whom has just released his first ever holiday album. As a Franco-American, I'm delighted that Bob Dylan has chosen a Cajun-style performance for the album's single, and the video is probably the funnest Christmas one I've ever seen; Bob Dylan never ceases to amaze me with his creativity. Dylan's US royalties for album "Christmas in the Heart" go to the charity Feeding America. I intend to purchase a copy of this album.
