« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Pledge to Nowhere

I want Republicans to win.

But not just for the sake of it. It is not enough simply to get power. Republicans must demonstrate that they actually understand why they were sent home in 2006 and 2008, and that they are 100% committed to changing the direction of Washington now that America seems poised to give them another chance. Fail to do that and the American people will send them home again.

Yesterday’s much anticipated “Pledge to America” represents a glimpse into how Republicans plan to govern, and simply put, it’s a pledge to nowhere.

At a time when America needs a bold, simple, fresh plan for putting America on the path to fiscal and constitutional sanity – we get instead an almost 8000 word term paper of inside-the-beltway regurgitation that lacks the one thing the American people seem to be dying to have… actual leadership. Harsh? Hardly.

    1. The Pledge fails to address the single greatest threat to our nation’s long term fiscal health – the fact that we have precisely $0 set aside for the more than $106 trillion in unfunded liabilities staring us in the face for social security, medicare and medicaid. Instead, we get more of the same political rhetoric about seniors standing to lose Medicare because of Obamacare. MEDICARE IS BANKRUPT. SOCIAL SECURITY IS BANKRUPT. FOR GOODNESS SAKE, MAN UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

    2. The Pledge blatantly fails to even mention earmarks, much less calling for a ban on them. The issue here isn’t about how much money we will save. The issue is about Congressional arrogance – and their naked addiction to using your tax dollars to try to buy off your votes back home.

    3. The Pledge offers no significant, concrete plan to reduce spending such as a Balanced Budget Amendment or a Spending Limit Amendment, relying instead on gimmicks like weekly votes on spending cuts and hiring freezes, as well as nebulous promises to cap spending.

    4. And perhaps most troubling of all, the Pledge adopts the nonsensical “repeal and replace” mantra for Obamacare – offering as replacement yet more federal government mandates regarding pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps on benefits, which begs the question: which mandates are unconstitutional and which ones are not, GOP? And, STOP WITH THE MANDATES. STOP IT. MANDATING THAT INSURERS COVER PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS IS JUST AS BAD AS THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE ON ITS FACE – BUT WORSE, YOU IDIOTS, IT WILL LEAD TO AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT COVER THE ALREADY SICK WITHOUT MANDATING THAT THE HEALTHY PARTICIPATE. JUST STOP IT.

In one asinine move, the GOP House leadership demonstrated that it is more interested in votes than in changing Washington and that it has learned nothing. In fact, all you need to know is that the ever-inspiring and bold David Frum wrote yesterday about the Pledge, “GOP to Tea Party: Your Votes Yes, Your Ideas No.”

Maybe if the self-dubbed “Young Guns” were focused on leading by virtue of the power given them in the Constitution rather than self promotion, they would realize that words are not enough. But let’s take a look, anyway.

The Pledge is broken into five sections. Let’s go through them.

1. A Plan to Create Jobs, End Economic Uncertainty and Make America More Competitive

In this section, you would think there would be something bold. Instead we get a promise to prevent massive tax increases by making all current tax rates permanent (i.e. the Bush tax-cuts), a mediocre small business tax deduction, an odd plan to require large-impact regulations to get Congressional approval and a promise to end burdensome regulations imposed by Obamacare.

All fine, but pretty weak. How about reducing corporate tax rates to even the level of our competition in other countries? How about cutting or eliminating the Capital Gains tax? How about massively simplifying the tax code by adopting a flat or FAIR tax? How about picking 100 burdensome regulations to end within the first 100 days rather than some nebulous, difficult-to-carry-out promise to stop future regulation? Congress has given the Executive branch the power to carry out most regulations – TAKE IT AWAY, and be specific.

2. A Plan to End Out-of-Control Spending and Reduce the Size of Government

Laudable goal. Weak plan.

First observation: no mention of a Balanced Budget Amendment, a Spending Limit Amendment or any other concrete proposal to end the madness in Washington.

Second observation: no mention of earmarks. Why? Because the politicians in Washington view them as the source of their power and ability to buy votes back home. Sure, they hide behind their “right” to spend money instead of a bureaucrat, but the reality is that Dr. Coburn is right when he calls earmarks the “gateway drug to spending.” After all the Tea Party backlash, these guys couldn’t even mention earmarks.

Third observation: more gimmicks. Weekly votes on spending cuts? Non-security hiring freeze? Really? The reality is that the actual employed federal work force has been the same size since World War II, and it’s composition is driven heavily by “security” employees in DoD and DHS. This would do nothing to curtail the millions of people on the government dole as contractors – where the real growth has occurred, as well as at state bureaucracies where compliance for federal mandates must occur (e.g. Medicaid). Finally, the number of employees are a symptom of largesse – they aren’t the problem. The problem starts in Congress.

Finally, I again note that there is no mention of actually reforming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – other than lip service to “a full accounting” of them. $106 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. I repeat, $106 TRILLION IN UNFUNDED LIABILITIES – MORE THAN THE TOTAL ECONOMIC OUTPUT OF THE WHOLE WORLD – MULTIPLE TIMES OVER.

3. A Plan to Repeal and Replace Obamacare

First – just repeal it, and if you can’t repeal it… de-fund it. Period. Stop babbling about “replacing.” I don’t want the federal government to “replace” Obamacare. I want the federal government to get out of the health care business and to take the minimal steps necessary to free up competition.

Second – STOP WITH THE MANDATES. STOP IT. STOP IT. MANDATING THAT INSURERS COVER PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS IS JUST AS BAD AS THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE ON ITS FACE – BUT WORSE, YOU IDIOTS, IT WILL LEAD TO AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT COVER THE ALREADY SICK WITHOUT MANDATING THAT THE HEALTHY PARTICIPATE. JUST STOP IT. And mandating a prohibition of caps on lifetime benefits is just as silly.

Third – Again on mandates – so you think its unconstitutional for the federal government to require an individual to buy insurance, but it’s perfectly ok to require that private companies must insure someone? Besides, see the above point – we’ll get individual mandates anyway.

Fourth – medical liability reform isn’t a federal issue. States that are adopting it are succeeding. States that aren’t are not. People are moving from the latter to the former. Let it be.

Fifth – I don’t want the federal government to have anything to do with the doctor-patient relationship.

Sixth – Yes, do not fund abortions. And yes, HSA’s are good.

4. A Plan to Reform Congress and to Restore Trust

First – Reading the bill is a good pledge. But it should be a longer period, and you have to include amendments and “substitutes,” which I am willing to bet you will quickly forget. You leadership folks didn’t exactly give the rest of your conference a full 3 days to review this document, did you? And, how about by starting with a promise to reduce the number of bills introduced. Do you really need to introduce 6500 bills?

Second – Adhere to the Constitution. Sure. But do you need to pledge to do that? It’s your job, and uh – you took an oath to do it. Besides – any measure you pass can simply offer up the Commerce Clause and the various other powers always abused to justify Congressional action. Justifying it isn’t the problem. Actually adhering to the Constitution is the problem.

5. A Plan to Keep Our Nation Secure at Broad and at Home

I am not going to go through this. But where is any mention of reviving our dwindling defense spending? I am not talking about war spending, I am talking about the future of our military. We were spending almost 1/3 of our GDP on defense at the end of World War II. Today, we still spend less than 5%. We are weakening our military in the long run. FIX IT.

I also notice there is no mention of immigration – only the border.

Most of the other stuff is fine – but the reality is that promises are no good when it comes to these issues. Americans want to see action – a strong military, a secure border (actually secure – not “operational control,” whatever that means) and dead terrorists – not terrorists in our back yard.

Get it done.

*********

Americans wants common sense action. They don’t need 8000 words of inside-the-beltway babble. You may well have one shot, GOP, to get this right. This was not a good start.

COMMENTS

  • rh654

    The Republicans are not going to do anything about spending or the deficit.

    The Republicans lack the guts to ever really cut spending because they know and so do all of you as soon as they get specific they will lose voters.

    Cut Medicare? Good bye old voters.
    Cut Education? Good bye soccer moms.
    Cut Social Security? Good bye old voters.
    Cut Defense? Good bye security voters.

    So, what do we have left? We have a Party that will cut revenue and not cut spending which will spiral us even faster into the fiscal hole we are in.

    The problem is NEITHER Party will cut spending.

    I want the Deficit taken care of – if we lack the guts to make REAL cuts – then we have to increase revenue – I don’t like it but I am a realist.

    • acat

      I know which one I’m planning for.

      Mew

      • Mary Beth
    • natlanthem

      Social Security: Increase withholdings for SS, but make the increases sacrosanct to the individual’s future needs starting immediately. Use a 10yr slipstream to set SS up as a real investment/savings plan and offload it to the private sector as directed managers.

      Medicare: same solution

      Defense: Hold steady until economy rebuilds

      Education: Eliminate
      Energy: Cut by 50%
      EPA: Cut by 50%

      • acat

        There is no lock box, Al Gore is a liar.

        There is no money in the alleged trust fund, Congress spent it all.

        More money comes out of both Medicare and Social Security than ever went into them.

        Tweaking a Ponzi scheme (or, a Madoff scheme, if you prefer) doesn’t make it any more honest, or any more viable in the long term.

        Mew

        • leee156

          Social Security currently has around two trillion in reserves. The law allows it to use this money to buy US bonds. The US has never defaulted on its bonds. If you put money in the bank, the bank immediately lends it out and you trust it will be able to provide your money if you want to withdraw it.
          If the US ever defaults on its bonds then we’re all screwed, not just Social Security recipients.
          Republicans don’t want to pay higher taxes and Democrats don’t want to cut spending. You may believe passionately in one side or the other of this argument, but unless we find some way to put our fiscal house in order we’ll all find ourselves living under a bridge . (Metaphorically)

          • AceInTX

            if there is a reserve out there…show me the money!

            I remember one of the few Brilliant moves Bush made when Al Gore kept incessantly flapping his gums about a “Lock Box” and Social Security trust funds…was to go to Beckley WV where he went to the second drawer of a file cabinet in some unnamed office and came out with the three ring binder that had a single sheet of paper stating the so called balance in the so called social security trust fund.

            There is no money to back it up….there are no gold reserves or anything else that back up the bottom line on those pieces of paper…PERIOD!

          • acat

            The only bonds the Social Security administration can buy are bonds that nobody else can buy, they are *specific* to the Social Security administration. They can’t be sold to anyone else.

            There are no assets behind these bonds.

            The solvency of the program depends on the volume of dollars coming in being greater than the volume of dollars going out – and at at some point soon that’s going to toggle over and all those assets are going to have to be paid back by the Congress….

            Mew

          • 6eorge Jetson

            The Federal Government “owes”* this to SS stakeholders. The SS part of the US govt has given the $2 Trillion to the rest of the government, in exchange for a promise of a future stream of payments. But the rest of the govt has spent it, and it’s ability to reclaim that money through taxation is not unlimited. Especially when the present ratio of three active workers supporting each retiree to two active workers supporting every retiree.

            Kinda like you giving me $2 million dollars. No worries I owe you $2 million. I in turn give the $2 million to my wife. No worries, she owes me $2 million. Oh crap, she spent it. Now your repayment depends upon my wife coming up with that $2 million from some other source.

            *In a bankruptcy, the stakeholders get some fraction of what they were owed under the original terms. And that is exactly what is going to happen under SS, etc. Raise the retirement age to 75? That’s a bankruptcy-like reorganization. Now as a legal technicality, SS is not legally bankrupt, because we citizens have no legal claim to Social Security funds. If the government were to say to retirees, “Sorry, it’s all gone” tomorrow, that wouldn’t technically be a bankruptcy. However, if it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it might as well be a duck.

    • avgjo

      Phase out social security – keep the old voters, get more young voters.
      Ditto Medicare.

      Don’t touch Defense.

      Destroy current education system by vouchers.

      And you left out all sorts of goodies we could cut, like massive cuts to the EPA, getting rid of the ATF, cutting welfare programs, cuts to the dept. of Interior, dept. of Commerce, USDA (e.g., ethanol subsidies), and on and on and on and…

      • 6eorge Jetson

        I should be clear that while I lament the state of the Social Security balance sheet with my use of the term “bankruptcy” above (no one likes getting screwed), that horse (not getting screwed) left the barn a long time ago.

    • securitymom

      What did you expect? They have been hammered with the title of “NO.” While you want a bold agenda, this isn’t about what YOU want. I see this document as a list of items that need to be accomplished, not an end all. I would like to know what else specifically you want included, and what you want taken out. No one is going to love this document completely because everyone has different ideas of what needs to be done. I think this is a good overall start.

      • Ned Ryerson

        It is a start and a good start. Did we need it to be as long as the health care bill, 2100 pages? When you try to be all things to all people, you end up being nothing to nobody. It is a plan for moving forward with a majority in congress. There are alot of selfish people on this site, inluding EE. Can we just start with a small plan and move forward. We see what happens when you have these great big plans that nobody can understand. Health Care, Stimulis 1,2,3,4, cap and tax, bail out. No matter what they rolled out today it would not have been good enough for too many of the “so called conservative idealogues”.

        • melatr7

          My take:

          Page 1 Made their connection to the Constitution, acknowledged that

          • melatr7

            *seriously pray*

      • rh654

        The reason why the Republicans did give specifics is because they do not plan on doing anything about spending – period.

        The document means nothing other than it makes people “Feel Good” about a “start” – but there is no start because there is nothing concrete.

        Its like a person living beyond their means saying: “I am going to reduce my spending” – and then they never actually specifically cut anything – this is what we get from the Republicans time after time and we keep falling for the lies.

        • davesinsanantonio

          S pecific
          M easurable
          A chievable
          R ealistic
          T ime-Bound

          I don’t think the Pledge meets these requirements enough to be real goals. So, it is just so much wallpaper. Eye wash is good if you have tired eyes, but as a political platform, not so much.
          As a first draft? Okay, but lets see what they come up with that satisfies all the above criteria. And, there is no reason to panic to get something out right away. I like yesterday’s suggestion to give it to the Heritage Foundation to flesh out with specifics. And, there is no need for Heritage’s first crack at to solve every single problem in America. Remember, it will be a statement of the main operating principles and some specific goals as we move forward in restoring this country to what it should have been all along. Let start with the most important things first.
          Slow down government spending, secure our borders, prevent terrorist attacks on us, repeal Obummercare and any other immediately harmful legislation, de-fund what cannot be immediately repealed, create a moratorium on new regulations until they can be vetted. start drilling and allow other use of our vital resources to put us on an independent energy footing, etc. These are things that can be done immediately or at least very quickly.
          “Get ‘er done!”

      • dudette

        I for one see some good stuff in the pledge, and remember they pledged things they can do—not stuff they hope to do and i submit that SS and Medicare stuff is a huge issue that is not going to be a neat little bullet point that they can tick off for their first year in power. A broad agenda with goals is onething, but the pledge is fashioned after the COntract and has things that can actually be done fairly swiftly, so give them a break.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          specifically WHAT are you planning on holding Rs accountable for with this tripe. And WHEN?

          Please be specific.

        • melatr7

          I agree that they SHOULDN’T promise things they may not be able to do. Every failure would make them look foolish.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      Cut Medicare? Good bye old voters.

      Already happening. They don’t have to cut Medicare. The physicians just opt out. All the have to do is hold it at current rate and the people on Medicare will die, the people trying to get on will never find a physician to treat them. The free market is uncompassionate in how it deals with stupidity. That’s why the Cuban system no longer even works for Cuba.

      Cut Education? Good bye soccer moms.

      Push vouchers. Get the soccer moms’ children away from the public school system. Pop the higher education bubble. Does the Assistant manager of Freezy-Freeze really need an $80,000 degree in Hotel and Restaurant Management from Dartmouth? Think hard. The answers will come.

      Cut Social Security? Good bye old voters.

      Means test it. Don’t adjust the means test for inflation. As soon as the economy recovers, a whole lot of upper middle class and wealthy individuals go off SS. It remains in place as a safety net for the hard-working poor.

      Cut Defense? Good bye security voters.

      Here I kind of agree with your nicely researched trolling expedition. Cut the useful aspects of defense, and OBL successfully pops a nuke in Central Park. How would that work out for your 401K?

      I also kind of disagree. Murtha’s and Moran’s infamous pork-barrel projects and gifts to “consulting” firms need to be flensed.

      • rh654

        Medicare – at the first whiff of having their medical coverage going away the old folks (who vote in vast numbers) will vote for whoever will get their them medical care – and Republicans will lose big.

        Social Security – means test it? The Republicans will never go for that – its such a Liberal idea really – the rich paid into SS why shouldn’t they get their goodies also? Only a Socialist would want the Rich to pay into something and then redistribute the wealth around to those that “need it” – the GOP has done itself no favors in their arguments on “wealth distribution” to go back and say they are in favor of it now.

        Defense – we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on Defense and yet on 9/11 we got hit and there wasn’t a thing our powerful military could do – sort of sad when you think about it…

        But I will say this about our military – we are certainly ready to fight the Soviet Union – too bad they don’t exist any longer….

      • edintexas

        Apparently you have bought in to the idea that it is perfectly Constitutional to have the Feds take the people’s money and spend it on education around the country. The only issue you have is that the Feds taking my money should only spend it the way you prefer.

        You must be a Republican.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
    • AceInTX

      because increasing taxes once you reach a certain level of taxation crushes development, investment, entrepreneurship, business creation and all the activities that generate profits to be taxed by the government.

      Reagan PROVED Friedman’s bell curve as did JFK before him…

      so…what do you suggest?

      • aesthete

        and the level of taxation at which development, investment, etc. are sufficiently depressed to reduce revenues is debatable (and generally believed to be north of the 50% rate). OTOH, cap gains tax cuts could probably mostly “pay for themselves”. Good response, though.

        • AceInTX

          Actually, it was Laffer’s curve

          Talk about a brain cramp

        • davesinsanantonio

          19%, and any tax rate “north” of that would result in lowered revenues.

          • aesthete

            who have studied the issue, even those sympathetic to Laffer, usually find that incredibly optimistic, and the most credible estimates I’ve seen put it at about 40-70% for marginal rates. (See, for example, Denmark, Germany, and others.) That said, the government should only be taking what it needs to fund its Constitutional obligations, and I suspect that the number needed for that is less than the maximization point (probably closer to 15-20% taxation).

          • JSobieski

            (1) a tax cut never costs as much as they say because of the dynamic pro-growth impact on the economy;
            (2) a tax increase never brings in as much as they say because of the dynamic anti-growth impact on the economy; and
            (3) a capital gains tax cut is the most likely to “pay for itself” and to do so at a lower rate

            Getting hung up on whether something 100% pays for itself is not a good tactical move. Better to focus on who owns the money, and the benefits of economic growth. Rich people can stay right in a stagnat economy, but everyone else suffers significantly and low taxes are recession fighters

          • aesthete

            It’s just a pet peeve for me when conservatives mindlessly cite the Laffer Curve as a reason that a tax cut is always going to “pay for itself” 100%, not least because it misses the freedom issue in favor of a poor optimization argument.

          • davesinsanantonio

            coming home to roost! Their economic problems are worse than ours.
            Second, if you routinely fund at the maximum revenue rates, what do you do in a huge emergency? How do you get the extra funds to cover a catastrophic natural disaster, a war, or a devastating recession such as the one we are now in?

          • acat

            The tax rates are so ridiculously high, people feel free not to pay them at all. Much more business is off the books, under the table.

            Anyone think the U.S. won’t learn this lesson?

            Mew

    • aesthete

      Perhaps the most cited statistic regarding the Tea Party movement is one in a CBS poll wherein most Tea Partiers declare their general support for Social Security. A less oft-cited statistic is the one asked in the same poll, which is whether they would support cuts in defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security if it would cut government and reduce the deficit. To that question, Tea Partiers answered 76% in the affirmative (as opposed to the general populace’s answer in the affirmative of 68%). So what does this tell us?

      Voters are rational. Cutting spending piecemeal does not work because people know that that’s just money being spent on something and someone else, not money that won’t be spent at all. If you are on Social Security and a politician vows to cut your benefits, while at the same time government is generally increasing, it’s obvious that the money spent on Social Security is just going to go into a different pot. Government cuts have to be comprehensive for them to work for that reason: New Zealand, Canada, and virtually every liberal democracy that has successfully cut government has done so comprehensively for that very reason.

      • avgjo

        n/t

    • napensnake

      we will have the opportunity to express our displeasure with political Republicans. It looks like the battle will have to take place in the primaries. If Congress doesn’t change its ways beginning January 3, 2011, we will have to change its personality in the period leading up to November 2012.

  • mschmitt
    • fpete13527
      • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

        Get the worst of the Dems first. Then, we can focus on the GOP Menchoviks.

  • bus2dc

    There is NOTHING on these pages. I GUARANTEE that the Tea Party can turn out a “pledge” of its own within the next TWENTY-FOUR HRS that blows this piece of puff to bits. WHAT ARE YOU DOING GOP?? Our LIVES – and those of our CHILDREN – are on the line this November and THIS is what you come up with? Can any of you actually speak and SAY something?

    And you wonder at our RAGE. We are DONE with this. Boy, are those GOP office phones and faxes going to be busy tomorrow. I’m surprised you didn’t release this tomorrow so you all could slink away in shame (or terror) for the weekend. If there is a conservative leader ANYWHERE in this country NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO STAND UP! AMERICA IS BLEEDING OUT – and we’re getting handed a Hallmark card instead of a tourniquet !!!!!

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
    • rh654

      The Tea Party has some general ideas to be sure – but where are their specifics.

      What specifically do they want to cut from government spending – and how much?

      The problem is as soon as you start cutting people – even those who say they are Conservative – will be mad that “their” government goodies are getting cut and their goodies can’t be cut because:

      • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

        Try offering solutions. All you are is a 1 man Party of No.

  • Dave_in_Fla

    They like it at NRO.

    They like it at Ricochet.

    They even like it at Ace of Spades.

    Some of the tea party groups are also praising it.

    But here? Yep, the long knives are out and people are ready to scalp people who haven’t even won an election yet.

    I do hope that we get all of this out of our system soon, and get back to the important issue of winning a couple important elections.

    I like the way Gheraghty put it this morning: “At Red State, Erick Erickson is, well, some combination of disappointed and livid”

    • WY_Cowboy

      The reaction here has been childish.

      It’s the O’Donnell supporter mindset in full, brutal action. “Nose, get off my face.”

      • securitymom
      • A_Texan

        This pledge is not Mike Castle’s platform.

        I am very pleased with the pledge, and with O’Donnell’s primary victory.

    • AceInTX

      you know…he’s the one that voted for Obama….and publicly endorsed him?

      http://smiles.kolobok.us/light_skin/blum.gif

      • JSobieski

        nt

        • AceInTX

          and there is an element of elitism there that can’t be denied…

          • Dave_in_Fla

            In fact, the magazine fired Chris Buckley after he endorsed Obama.

            I spent the week after the election with most of the National Review editors, trust me on this, NO ONE was singing the praises of Obama. They were all actively trying to figure out how to stop what they knew was coming.

            Oh, and Fred Thompson was there as well :)

          • AceInTX
          • AceInTX

            correction

            I realize NRO didn’t endorse BHO…but it’s editor did

    • rightwingmom52

      Last time I looked, readers at Liberty Central gave the pledge a big fat “F”. And our suggestions in the comments at LC and Hogan’s have more substance than politicians who still just don’t get it. We will no longer be pacified by a few pretty words and a pat on the head.

  • http://UnitedConservativesofVirginia Cargosquid

    cares about the upcoming crash. They just want to time it so that the other party gets the blame.

    More tea, please.

  • IJB

    Now is absolutely *not* the time to broach entitlements – not in a mid-term election, and not when his Commieness is going to be sitting in the Oval Office for the next 2 years.

    Doing so would just be an invitation for the Dems to demagogue the issue though 2012, ensuring Obama’s reelection.

    Talking about what to do with entitlements is going to have to wait for the 2012 Presidential campaign.

    But campaigning on that issue now, when we’ll actually be able to achieve *ZERO* on that front, while simultaneously allowing our domestic opponents to demagogue it for the next 2+ years, is a recipe for absolute disaster.

    Frankly, I’m glad these guys were at least smart enough to stay away from that searing hot poker…

    • rh654

      What did the Republicans do about entitlements from 2000 to 2006 when they were last in power?

      The same Republicans are still around – do you think that they will do anything different when they are back in power?

      If they lack the guts to take it on now – they won’t have any more guts after 2012 because if they hold the majority they will want to keep it.

      If they don’t they will want it.

      And even the Old Tea Party folks will want their Medicare and Social Security protected even though the money is being taken from me and everyone else who isn’t old by force of government to pay off the old voters.

      • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
      • IJB

        Explaining the entitlement problem, and getting a majority to agree to it, can only be done from the bully pulpit of a Presidential campaign.

        Having the GOP run on entitlement reform in 2010 would be *suicide*.

  • indylawyer

    The problem with this Pledge is that it tries to cover too much ground. Once you get beyond a statement of broad principles or a few key promises, its awfully tough to get all the house candidates to agree on one set of promises. And including this level of detail makes omissions more significant.

    And frankly, what can be realistically promised depends greatly on how well the elections go. If we have 225 in the house and 47 in the Senate, we’re alot more limited than if its 260 and 55. And even with the latter we’ll still need Obama’s signature and usually the votes of 5 Democrat senators to actually pass anything. Unless Obama suddenly transforms into a unifying President willing to genuinely compromise for the good of the country, most of the big reforms are going to have to wait until 2013 when we will hopefully have a conservative President and the kind of congressional majorities the Dems won in 2008.

    • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

      The level of detail alone is bad in that any failure will be magnified at every level by opposition politicking while handing the opposition something they can plan against or exploit through preemptively endorsing then perverting to suit their own needs within the specifics of the pledge.

      The level of detail/massive size of it makes it evident that to many lawyers are in charge etc. The lawyering to death of America is evident in everything from this pledge to Obamacare to people being afraid of either being sued for no cause or otherwise accused falsely by some bureaucrat or otherwise frozen into inaction.

      The real problem is the attitudes/actions of those who consider themselves the ruling class. What we need are people who will do what is long term best for everyone, cutting off the corruption of the pork barrel/reducing governments size (bureaucracy not military) and debt etc, and not what is short term best, like earmarking every bill to death to pass it, for themselves alone.

      We either need principled people who will work in the vision of the founders or we need a whole new set of people and a complete restart.

      /2c

  • The Moat

    Balanced Budget amendments aren’t that helpful.

    1. They rely on projected revenues and expenditures which can be tweaked to accomplish the balanced result, and may end up bearing no resemblance to reality. (A perfect example is Gov. Christie’s Feb. speech which cites the “balanced” state budget which projected a 5.1% growth in sales tax.)

    2. Conservatives like a balanced budget amendment because they look at it and read “reduced spending.” Liberals, with no intention of reducing spending, see only an excuse to tack on new taxes to “offset” their new spending. We don’t need to give these people another excuse to tax us.

    3. Revenue projects perpetuate the lie that raising tax rates will raise tax revenue. We have seen the converse proven in history time and time again. When we argue for fewer/lower taxes, balanced budget requirements give liberals the opportunity frame these cuts as a “cost” and then to attack us on the grounds of fiscal discipline. It’s laughable coming from the them, but that’s the dynamic that exists when we allow balanced budget requirements to treat tax reductions as expenses.

    Long story short, balanced budget requirements work only if (A) legislators are willing and able to honestly and accurately predict future changes in expense and revenue (they’re not) and (B) liberals are willing to accept that tax increases can actually reduce government revenues (they’re not). Until those things happen, (they never will), a balanced budget requirement is of no help to us.

    Rather, we should focus on defining the proper scope/role of gov’t and cutting spending where it exceeds those boundaries.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      People who still believe in Santa Claus do not deal well with Austerity Christmas.

  • http://wadingacross.wordpress.com logus

    Now, don’t jump the gun. Sure, I’d love to see the Democrat Party and leadership removed from majority power, but, winning is not everything.

    I want excellence, not success. I want principles, not pragmatism. Frankly, what I see coming out of the “conservative movement” is pragmatism of another stripe; principles with “new” strategies.

    It is plainly evident that many Republicans – specifically those holding the reins of power in the RNC and Congress – still do not understand. It is plainly evident that they think pragmatism will win them not only control, but something better for this country – reverting or course correcting policies.

    I see many people saying that they’re still going to vote for the Republicans but that they’ll no longer carry their water. Good. About time. Politics and strategies are not going to “save”, correct or “restore” this nation.

    I’ve continued to waffle on the issue myself over the years but I seem to be solidifying – I hope so. No more compromise. Principles only, even if that means “losing” a particular seat or majority chance. Starve the politicians. Your votes feed them, and so many in this new conservative movement have proved this fact by how many incumbents have been voted out and will be voted out.

    If this new conservative swell, this beast that has been awakened wants real success, they have to think ahead and for the long term, and more importantly, be willing to lose, and lose, and lose first. It is not the end of the world or this nation if Republicans or conservatives of some new party do not gain/regain control of Congress and the White House this year, in 2012 or for quite some time. Excellence over success, because excellence will bring success.

    Hammer out a new conservative pledge, but make it balanced and equitable, one that does not bow to compromise and pragmatism, giving heed to social issues just as much as fiscal ones.

    – Since a child I was described as a stick in the mud, fighting against the current. I am a recalcitrant curmudgeon, but I put Christ first before this nation or politics. It seems that too many conservatives are putting this nation first.

    • davesinsanantonio

      The Leftists can do so much more damage in the next few years, if they remain in charge, that we will never be able to undo it. I mean, look at the damage they have done in less than two years. And, there are many who are saying that we will not be able to repeal Obunnercare, even though more than 2/3 of the country want it gone.
      Also, if we lose this election, it may be the last “election” this country sees. There might be the illusion of an election in the future, but the results will never change. They will grant SEIU and ACORN and the New Black Panthers, etc., such power over the polling places and the counting of the votes that they will never lose another election. And, they will have the gall to claim that this proves that the voters support their agenda.

      • http://wadingacross.wordpress.com logus

        I grew up considering myself quite the conservative fundamentalist, in all aspects. Over the years I vacilated, but in the last year especially I’ve really begun to take serious stock of what I believe, why, and what’s important.

        I am a Christian first and foremost. Christ comes first, period. To that end, everything else is strained thru Christ, thru the Bible. And what I am seeing is that many Christians, especially those who call themselves conservative (moreso liberals) have effectively whored themselves out to politics and parties, putting man and this nation, putting ideology and strategy before God. All in the name of pragmatism. All in the name of a game, maneuvering.

        Sorry. I no longer buy the hype, buy the peddled wares. I am not saying I am removing myself from politics or involvement in government, but my eyes are wide open, with no allegiance to any party, and zero care if any party wins or loses because in the end, it does not matter. Only Christ matters, period.

        The Church has sold itself to the world, to be not only in the world but of it, thinking foolishly that they can win the world by doing so. Instead it has watered down its witness and corrupted its body. All in the name of playing the political game, pandering for social changes. Relativistic prostitution.

        The left can continue to do damage to this nation, and frankly, so will the right. The only way things will be truly undone is thru real revival, starting at the individual level, in the homes and in the churches, from the ground up, not the top down.

        Changing the leadership and control of this nation thru political parties will not truly improve or correct this nation.

        Fight against the left, sure, but not with pragmatism. Fight with principles, even if it means you will surely lose elections. Fight with excellence, not merely to succeed.

        Therefore I do not believe I am wrong. No sir. I understand full well that my viewpoint is/will be largely derided and disliked by diehard conservatives and Republicans, especially those calling themselves Christians, but it’s high time we actually think logically thru what we claim we believe, and spend time in the Word.

  • ktsub

    Root for the home team! All this downing the pledge, my gosh its a damn start, let’s get a conservative Congress.

    It would make no difference what they came out with….most here would hate it…even if they wrote it themselves.

    I listened to Mike Pence explaining it, on Fox News this morning, the crowed at my office was listening before work started. Everyone in the crowed was nodding in agreement, one guy said who is “this Pence, he should be the President”.

  • rdelbov

    read I like the Manifesto–this is a new concept for elections.

    I call it a Manifesto because that’s what its called in the UK.

    I quote the party platform here but that’s pretty obscure.

    Too many people are a little grumpy in my opinion.

    They would say lets dump everyone in DC then actual try to convince people-let the GOP is trying-to vote for a conservative platform.

    The GOP wants to cut taxes-cut spending-cut regulations-promote freedom-create real Medical insurance reform and folks here bash them for it.

    You have persaud people to vote for you or all your ideology means nothing. This is a document to win an election.

    As erick said “we ain;t won nothing yet”

  • smitch61

    I always have. I am tired of their taking my vote and not representing me, that is always how it works. In some respect the GOP is worse than the democrat party. The one thing I learned after the McCain debacle is just how many conservatives simply do not vote. We really have no idea how large our base really is. I have run across people in the last year and a half who have not voted since Ronald Reagan. These same individuals plan to vote in November, but beyond that they have no idea. At a time when the tea party has worked so hard they slap us in the face yet again. I do not know if it is worth the fight anymore. The last thing we need right now is for the establishment to knock us down now after all of the hard work, sleepless nights, and the will to take back this country.

    I have been laid off in Michigan for almost two years, I have fought all of this government take over while diligently looking for full time employment. This is the first time in my life I have ever collected unemployment and I am 50. I am sick and tired of living my life at the mercy of politicians who do not give a damn about conservatives. They all want big government and their cushy little jobs at tax payer expense. When there is a “regular folk” who dares to win an election, they are handed their asses on a silver platter. The GOP can go straight to hell with the rest of them.

  • howardbeale

    It serves as another reminder that we can never relax. Winning the House/Senate doesn’t mean diddly squat if it’s backed by a weak strategy.

    • WY_Cowboy

      It halts Obama’s agenda, which is the most important thing for the future of our country.

      Idiot.

      • davesinsanantonio

        If we don’t have a strong strategy, based on true principles, and the cajones to follow that strategy, then we will not be able to undo the damage Obama has already done, and may not even be able to halt the agenda he has for the future, even if we have a majority in both houses of Congress. A majority without a backbone is not really a majority.

  • The Moat

    Even where a balanced budget is achieved by reducing existing spending elsewhere, in a best-case scenario, we’re swapping one program we cannot afford for another. Worse than that, this exchange somehow legitimizes the new spending.

    Imagine you have a friend with no job and $50,000 in credit card debt from frivolous purchases. The two of you are at the mall, and she sees a $500 purse that she just HAS to have. You try to preach fiscal restraint to her. You ask her why she has to have that purse. You ask her if it’s worth $500.

    She relents, and vows that she has turned over a new leaf; showing you her new balanced budget. In this monthly budget, she has allocated $2,000 for new shoes, and has projected earnings of 5,000 from a job she doesn’t have. To make room for the purse, she takes the $2,000 she actually cannot afford to spend on shoes, and reduces that to $1,500.

    On paper, her budget is balanced.
    On paper, her budget is no worse off for the additional purchase.
    On paper, she is the epitome of fiscal responsibility.

    In reality, she’s an unemployed shopaholic in massive debt.

    Paper solutions like balanced budget requirements or PayGo are not the answer.

    • The Moat

      Should have been a reply to my earlier post.

  • Scope

    that Earmarks were not mentioned. Not that long agao EE had a diary talking about Eric Cantors refusal to keep the House ban on earmarks. Cantor was in favor of the “valid earmarks” or whatever he called them.

    Today there is this story about Senate earmarks in the 2011 Defense spending bill-

    http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/120387-miss-senators-bank-big-on-defense-earmarks-

    Two Mississippi Republican Senators have snagged the biggest earmarks in the legislation. The total of earmarks in this bill is $2.6 billion. Thad Cochran got $211.8 million, and, Wicker got $161. million. For those that claim that earmarks are not a big part of spending, we are talking about $2.6 BILLION, in just one spending bill, which, according to the article, is half of the previous earmarks in the Defense bill. I’d think we could do a whole lot for our armed forces, and the equipment they need with $2.6 billion dollars.

    As to the Obamacare language, I also remember Boehner and Cantor playing games with the King Discharge petition. They refused to sign it unless the “Repeal and Replace petition was presented also. They are not serious about repealing Ocare. I am convinced they will just tweak some parts of it, while letting the worst of it to move forward. I think they would rather see it as Cantorcare or Boehnercare, when in reality there should be no federal whatevercare at all.

    I am not surprised that the Pledge does not include any firm language to rein in entitlements, SS, Medicare and Medicaid. The D’s are already scaring the elderly, and the poor, that the Republicans are going to cut you off, and let you “die quickly.” They don’t need to talk about it, they just need to do it, but, I’m doubtful they will.

    I agree with another commentor, this is nothing more than an attempt to gain R votes. They would have been much better off doing nothing, rather they showed their hands of weakness once again.

    • calgacus

      is earmarks, just for aliens.

  • Common_Cents

    America will respond to straight talking honest truths right now. Because even though many of us are in denial, we are open to the truth, instead of extend and pretend.

    When your near future azz is on the line you will embrace the truth, no matter how hard.

    It just takes someone like Christie as a catalyst.

    What is a shame is that someone like a Christie should be the freakin NORM rather than the exception!!! That is the danger of having nearly all of our leadership rotten, the public starts looking for saviors, which can be disastrous as we are finding out. Our country has slipped quite far, a little at a time over the past decades.

    The good news: We can snap back quickly with the truth, hard work, and making some tough calls.

    • The Moat

      NT.

    • mikerazar

      Didn’t he endorse Mike Castle? Doesn’t that mean he is “dead to us”?

  • caseoftheblues

    ….why don’t you just hand over the country permanently to Obowma and his Marxist/Socialist/Anti-American ilk becasue that is precisely what you are doing. Honestly conservatives are their own worst enemies….if victory isn’t 100% total and instantaneous and in exactly the shade and tone that you demand you competely reject it. And that is how Libs have kicked our butts for generations…they know know to accept tiny steps, tiny victories toward an ulimate goal…they have reshaped our country into something unrecognizable by one judge appointment, one University president, one Attorney General, one law, one regulation, one state after the other. You are a bunch of Conservativezillas….wonderful things are finaly happening in this coutry and instead of recognizing that and feeding it…you are eating your own…becoming deranged because every detail isn’t to your liking. The Dems don’t need to do a damn thing because no one attacks and destroys Conservatives as ruthlessly as “Conservatives’!

    • securitymom
    • WY_Cowboy
    • acat

      Even if I accepted your major premise, which appears to be that conservatives shouldn’t express frustration with moderates in public, the tone is just .. wow.

      Mew

      • caseoftheblues

        you really don’t have a clue do you…..and gee sorry I forgot to get permission form the tone police…guess your major premise is I can’t express frustration with Conservatives who seem to be working their butts off to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!

        • acat

          I’m somehow “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”, but it’s all fine for you to throw a hissy fit worthy of my two-year-old niece.

          I see.

          Mew

          • caseoftheblues

            …my exact point

          • acat
    • avgjo

      screw things up for years. The reason the libs have been kicking our butts for generations is that the GOP makes promises it doesn’t keep and they often run as conservatives but govern as dem-lite. GOP squishiness is EXACTLY what has gotten us into the mess we now find ourselves in. I love him, but George W’s compassionate conservatism contributed to record deficits, which now the Dems use as justification for their own profligacy; perhaps it’s ridiculous for them to do so, but apparently the ‘two wrongs make a right’ works with some people. So after nearly 2 terms of governing as Dem lite and then running a RINO like McCain, we have Obama and dem supermajorities in the Congress.

      How about RINOzillas, people who become deranged because conservatives want standards and want that our representatives not deviate from those standards? Read this pledge. You know what it is? A return to the Bush years. And we see where that got us.

      • securitymom

        So we need to go item by item on who is a better conservative? Please, I have lived through more Presidents than a good deal of you. I happen to have watched, and lived what has been done with power. It is power that has led to alot of mistakes. BTW I would gladly go back to the Bush years compared to this. My children and grandchild would be protected and I wouldn’t have to worry that they will be stuck with a healthcare mandate that is costly and will ruin our current system. I don’t happen to like this hopey changey thing.

        • avgjo

          your comment about power. And that’s why I’m not entirely pleased with these guys right now. They don’t seem to want badly enough to reduce the amount of power in D.C. Yes, conditions in the Bush years were better, and I like Pres. Bush, as I mentioned above, but again, many actions taken during those years led us to where we are. And it’s that aspect of the Bush years I don’t want to go back to.

          • securitymom

            But, hope springs eternal that they are getting the message..

    • cwilson

      In politics — and in life — you should set high goals. What you would dearly love to accomplish, if everything went your way, realizing that it probably won’t. You’ll have to compromise, things won’t go as you planned, and you’ll get — if you’re lucky — 50-60% of what you want.

      The problem with the Pledge is that the goals it sets are (a) too modest. As a starting point for negotiations with the marxist left, any compromise shifts from “acceptable I guess and doesn’t make things worse” to the same old situation we’re SO used to with Republican politicians: “making things worse, just not as quickly as the leftists want to”.

      (b) the pledge is filled with weasel words. “We will fight to…” Uh huh. How hard? Will you risk you majority (if you have one) by pressing forward in the face of concerted attacks by the Dems and the Press (BIRM), and falling numbers in cooked push polls? Or will you, as always before, chicken out and say “well, we DID fight. Some…” and compromise away our principles completely?

      (c) The pledge is so diffuse — and so long — that it can’t serve as a mandate. “We were given the majority(ies) to accomplish these five things: 1,2,3,4,5. They may be controversial, they may be bold, there may be significant opposition from certain groups. BUT…a majority of voters agreed with us, and THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR because we spelled out all five items in the Pledge.” Do you really think ANYONE could say that THIS pledge spells out a real, actionable governing mandate to do specific things? Since it can’t, the incoming majorities won’t be ABLE to say “We want to do bold thing X and we have a mandate for it” — so, if they DO attempt bold thing X…it’ll be Obamacare Round 2: the voters will say (and rightfully so) “Hey, wait a minute…you didn’t campaign on THAT. That’s not what we thought we were voting for. You sold us a bill of goods back in Nov 2010, just like Teh Won did in Nov 2008!”

      In short, the Pledge is a pale pastel, in a time when we need — for reasons both practical and political — bold colors.

    • bus2dc

      No, we attack “conservative” politicians who either are NOT conservative or speak without SAYING anything. I think we’ve seen, in just a short 18 months, the disastrous effect of radical LIBERALS saying something and following through – if the GOP does not counter with the same specifics and determination, it would be better to just shut up and not release sort-of-tea-flavored rendition of what the basic GOP platform already IS.

      This should have been a statement of Principles, which would have shown in stark contrast the anti-American motives and agenda of the radical left now chomping at this country’s throat. The pledge should have been to uphold those (founding) principles, if they couldn’t or didn’t want to provide an explicit and detailed game plan at this point.

      I think many, many conservatives are in agreement that “we’ll cut taxes” just doesn’t “cut it” anymore. Remember Obama’s ‘if they bring a knife we’ll bring a gun’ campaign. This is a rubber-band.

  • WY_Cowboy

    You want your version of the perfect candidate to win in all of the races across the country. If that doesn’t happen, if every candidate does not meet your test of purity, you think it is actually better to have a liberal, Obama agenda supportin’ Democrat in office. With your mind set, Obama’s agenda is just a little bit more secure, more achievable. For example, Christine O’Donnell.

    • Christine (Trelaina)

      if every candidate does not meet your test of purity, you think it is actually better to have a liberal, Obama agenda supportin

  • chihank

    Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said the “Pledge” offers little to Christian voters. However, he calls the “Pledge” statisfactory and an improvement over the Newt’s Contract.

    Huckabee can use the lack of focus on social issues by GOP leaders to rally Christians to his 2012 campaign.

    • acat

      His populism will not appeal nearly as much in a down economy without a rational plan to fix the economy – and Huck isn’t known for that. Not to mention the “baptist preacher turned politician” meme still won’t play well out of the south.

      Mew

      • rightwingmom52

        with the pledge to support traditional marriage and permanently eliminate tax money for abortions, etc. It was my fiscal conservative side that remains ticked off at elected officials thinking it’s still business as usual. If I hear one more person talk about scaling spending back to 2008 levels, I’m going to scream. Now, if we could scale back to 1908 levels, we might have something to talk about. In any case, neither of my conservative sides would vote for Huckabee.

  • fpete13527

    The GOP is not even close to getting the message at almost any level.
    They don’t get it (they actually do get it and are faking) that the solutions need to dynamically interdict into the status quo that has been allowed.

    And yes it will mean that they have to get courageous and bold and start speaking out in the face a pure left wing media and education system in this country.

    It will mean that they have to stop worrying about keeping their own progressivism around for years like, the “Pork 11 Senators who refuse to cut earmarks.”

    It will mean that they have to start putting their butt on the line for freedom and prosperity in this country

  • chihank

    but passable. The big question will be how many Republicans up for election will sign on to the Pledge? I could see many House candidates. I wonder about the Senate candidates.

  • WY_Cowboy

    This is the same kind of argument trotted out by purists in the GOP every election. The fact of the matter is that there are no pure “Values Voters.” Social conservatives also worry about the economy, national security, freedom and the Constitution, and passing on a moral and financial legacy to our children better than what has been passed on to us.

    However, let’s look at the facts. There’s a broad pledge at the beginning to “honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.” And the specific agenda item on abortion is a pledge to “establish a government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion and subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion” and establish conscience protections for medical workers.

    If that isn’t good enough for this election, then nothing will every be good enough.

    • ctpsb

      Cantor was just on Laura Ingraham. I admire his honesty and realism when he stated he can’t make very specific number promises when he doesn’t even know who will be in Congress much less on specific committees.

      I knew when this Pledge came out no matter what it said or looked like there would be heavy criticism. It’s too long/short, it’s too specific/broad, it did/didn’t emphasize social issues. Look I’m as hardcore conservative as they come and I’m fine with this Pledge but to be honest as long as it wasn’t obviously bad I would’ve be fine with it no matter what (choice of the hardware set background notwithstanding). The point of it was to have a general mandate to point to should we have a majority in one/both houses of Congress, not the blank slate fluff that meant nothing/everything spewed by Obama and the Dems in 2008. We need to step back and see the forest for the trees and focus on electing true conservatives to every office in the land over the next 40 days.

      • calgacus

        The reality is that the Dems are going to get pounded no matter what. There is no need for all this talk, and much need for strong action in 2011.

  • ktsub

    Fight fight….let’s actually win a General Election. It seems like 2004 was a lifetime ago. Get a grip everyone…seriously, n one is happy around here…we are getting positive media coverage…and all y’all want to do is dump it in the mud.

  • mexdawg1
  • mexdawg1

    He has to be the best hope for the GOP. Hopefully, after the election and when all the tea party candidates are congressmen and senators, then the rest of the GOP will fall in line or be booted next election.

  • securitymom

    I’m all for it.

  • rdelbov

    is all about cutting taxes–reducing government-shrinking the reach of government-supporting our military–its a disaster?

    I remember reading in the good book that we were a stiff necked grumbling people and I guess that’s true.

    I have seen republicans run on nothing many times. This might not suit me 100% but its a start.

  • Common_Cents

    The left is always playing offense, installing artificial structure/organizations to gain control. Conservatives believe we do not need a large governmental structure. It’s hard to undo all this crap especially entitlements.

    Conservatives don’t have the extensive watch dog bureaucratic structure as we go about improving our lives and providing for our family how we see fit. It is only when things get “bad” enough do conservatives wake up and take action.

    We might learn from the left and maintain some smaller level of watchdog structure to maintain limited government and the best conditions to succeed in America. An ounce of prevention……

    I see the right as the older wiser stronger dog and the left as a continual ankle biter. Once in awhile the older stronger dog will give the ankle biter a good nip to put them in place. That only lasts so long and the ankle biter is back to their shenanigans.

  • A_Texan

    I was pleasantly surprised to read the pledge.

    It contains a list of measures that establish and maintain a center-right coalition. Each one of these measures can be endorsed by the House, and will embarrass Senate Democrats and the President. President Obama probably doesn’t have it in him to triangulate and support these measures, which sets up 2012 nicely.

    By the way, all you fiscal conservatives need to take a lesson in political prudence from us pro-lifers. We learned long ago that swinging for the fences was a political failure–even though such aspirations were right given the gravity of the evil of abortion. Incrementalism–such that each step forward moves the political center of gravity to allow for further progress–is the prudent, patient method–even if it is aggravating as all get out given the evil to be remedied, whether it be fiscal or moral insanity.

    Hence this morning, pro-life groups are very happy to see the GOP commit to a permanent ban on federal funding of abortion, and you’ll hear few complaining about the failure to commit to a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

    • Dave_in_Fla

      Incrementalism is winning the day for the pro-life movement. Ironically, even the set backs, like the Stupac betrayal, are turning out to be beneficial for exposing who is really pro-life and who just wants the pro-life votes.

      Ever since the strategy moved from overturn Roe, to incementally neutering Roe by pushing for state mandated limitations on what degree of murder is acceptable, the public mindset has shifted. 10 years ago, the Boxer argument that Carly is pro-life and unelectable in California would have been a viable attack. Now the voters just look at Boxer and shrug their shoulders.

      Having a long term goal, coupled with a strategy of changing the mindset of the electorate towards the pro-life position has been a tremendous, if unheralded success.

      • rh654

        The leadership of the Pro-Life groups and the Republicans will want Pro-Choice to remain the law of the land.

        Why? Simple – it is far easier to raise money and votes to “overturn” something than to maintain the Status Quo.

        The Social Conservatives know that they can rally the base because abortion is legal. If abortion was ever outlawed a few things would happen that the Pro-Life leaders and politicians would want:

        1) They would no longer be rallying to change – but rather to maintain the status quo – that is great short term but long term it is difficult to maintain excitement to keep things as they are.

        2) They are worried about the 18-40 female vote. There are a couple of generations of women in this country that have never had to worry about their right to an abortion – they take it for granted and it is not a voting issue for many of them. If that right was taken away – they could turn out in huge numbers to get back their right to an abortion – and as such the Republicans could find themselves in big trouble.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
  • redgrains

    In another time when a football team tied its rival in final score of a game it was labeled..’kissing your sister’..ie it was a kiss(aka an achievement) but not a kiss you should be proud of…

    Welcome to ‘the Pledge’….’Nothing to see here ..move along folks’…the legacy of Specter, Murkowski, Castle is ALIVE!…but we(RedStateNation) …were…’kissed’.

    Thank you sirs(McConnell, Boehner, etal)… may we have another?…’

  • http://herbal-nutrition.net/Billga Bill

    Isn’t that what the old sheriff told Cool Hand Luke? Well, if the GOP does take control of the House or Senate or both, then WE THE PEOPLE must continue to Communicate to them our desires. This is not a sprint, this is a JOURNEY, and it must start in 2010 and go forward in 2012, 2014, 2016, etc. We must continue to purge the RINOs and get more Conservatives and Libertarians who will sit down under the GOP tent (since the GOP is already on the ballots in 50 states) and agree on core values and principles that will be the catalysts to reverse this SOCIALISTS MESS we have let ourselves get into. Okay, the Republicans have a PLEDGE for now. In February 2011 that PLEDGE will be “revised to specifics which will do the job” or in March 2011, WE THE PEOPLE start our candidate search for 2012 and start crossing off the GOP people that we have FAILED TO COMMUNICATE WITH. What do you think RedStaters?

  • jaykali

    now is not the time to talk entitlement cuts. that’s a great way not to get elected. look paul ryan and other’s have already put plans out there for that. the republicans didn’t have to cover everything in one document. this document is just fine, it has principles and specifics. i like it, altho i guess the real audience are independents, not sure what they will think.

    it doesn’t really matter that much bc there’s not really going to be much that will sway elections one way or another but let’s focus on picking up some seats before we actually get too in the weeds on policy.

    and the fact is, most of their energy is going to be used on stopping the obama agenda for 2 yrs so there’s not going to be much done anyway. we really have to get a republican president in here to get real initiatives done. for now let’s stop the bleeding..ie no more cap and trade/health care type job-killing legislation getting through both houses.

  • Flagstaff

    They make people’s eyes glaze over. They are irrelevant and mostly not understood.

    There are plenty of other issues that resonate with the public; talk about them.

    If we have polling data that show me to be wrong, I’ll change my mind on this.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      entitlements, taxes and debt, I would be a part of the massive basic math education program that would be necessary to save the republic.

  • takemccain2

    Where is the commitment to eliminate earmarks?

    Where is the commitment to completely repeal Obamacare and any other wasteful, intrusive government mandates?

    Where is the commitment to term limits for Congress?

    Where is the commitment to undo 40 plus ruinous years of the Education Department by ridding our nation of it’s existence?

    Where are the damn commitments that matter?

    This Pledge is a bunch of Dreck.

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      ..and if our Republican leadership don’t get it this November, we take off our belt and take them on a trip to the woodshed as often as needed until they do get it – or are replaced by those who can get the job done.

      • takemccain2

        Is there anything in the Pledge about securing the borders of the United States and enforcing immigration laws?

  • natlanthem

    I think this pledge is a good sign. Do I think it is in any way the precise, targeted message that needs to be given on the direction of the Republican party in the face of We The People? Of course not. But it is an unfailing measure of progress, and here is why.

    Organizations faced with concrete changes in the environment, policy or constituency regularly follow a pattern of reactions to that change, whether those changes are decided on by top leaders or forced on the organization from the outside. Those changes are well documented and break down into five distinct steps:

    Denial
    Anger
    Bargaining
    Depression
    Acceptance

    The GOP leadership is clearly faced with a population that has moved away from moderation in the face of climbing debt and threats to future generations and freedom. The world has changed while they maintained their establishment processes.

    We can see now that there was a period where they attempted to ignore and deny the change in the Republican base. They fought on with their attack pattern alpha against the liberal agenda, but failed miserably when they were ignored and co-opted in the stimulus. Now real change has come through last summers strong opposition to healthcare which dragged that process out LONG after the liberal forces should have quelled the rebellion. The TEA party and the conservative base proved without a doubt they were powerful without help from the establishment.

    Then came the ridicule, not just from the Left, but in the seething irritation of the establishment hacks. The reactions to the primary losses to conservatives, the bitter betrayels of the losers, the posters seen after O’Donnells win.

    But now, we see something different. Here we see the bargaining … the “well, we can’t go where you want to go, but how about you accept this Pledge, which is really nice too”. Leadership in large corporations would not be surprised to see this at all. This just means they steps are being worked through.

    What we have to worry about is the next step. Conservatives will win great victories in November, even O’Donnell. Anyone who listens to her speeches, her interviews or reads her words can see she is a 40+ yr old conservative woman with sensible ideas about how to improve Delaware. But the media knows the change model, and plays up to it. Fear, doubt, anger all placated by the willing left pundits … and those going through the change fall for it hook, line and sinker.

    But we can be smarter. We and see this is perfectly normal, this is working as intended, and we just have to keep pushing. We have to help those along that can make it, and respectfully help to the side those who can’t. But we WILL make OUR country vital again.

    Be encouraged!!

  • rsturm

    Why is it that we all get so riteous… after the fact? Why are the Republicans (we ‘want to win’) just now receiving our insights and wish-lists? This has been a hot topic, a standing issue, a chronic whine (‘party of NO!’) from the Dems for many months, yet we all sat on our thumbs and waited for someone else to start… what..? So we could look good as we slice & dice whatever they had the guts to offer first?!

    Here’s an idea… Let’s hire a George Soros to script and fund what should be dictated to our minions at nahnah!mefirst.org and then maybe we Repub’s can look VERY cool and ALWAYS in perfect synchrony like the Dems did at the last election!! Oh wait…

    Maybe we could just acknowledge that the list submitted is a ~first step… a Phase-one: to beat down the most egregious items this admin has turned against us, our economy, and our constitution. It is far short of completion, given the ~150 years of Admins-du-jour, each taking hacks and tweaks at will, at our still-amazing system.

    All of your suggestions seem excellent, with the most viable against the “replace” term used (anywhere near Obamacare or ANY nationalized health program) – but let’s don’t just beat each other up with even a well-honed POV that could be so valuable, and try to look at the bigger picture.

    Don’t you think that a party that supports our freedoms and independence is going to need every scrap of help to organize and centralize?

  • davesinsanantonio

    it is the last chance we will get! If we blow this one, most of America will just give up on government and start stockpiling food and ammunition is preparation for the coming cleansing and subsequent collapse.
    I use the word “cleansing” because in every country where the Left have taken total control, they have followed with purges of their opposition and even potential opposition. From the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany to China and Vietnam and Cambodia to Venezuela and Cuba. When it begins in America, there will be violence of a scale we cannot really imagine. I mean, there are 100 million guns in private hands, and a lot of those hands will use those guns rather than give them up!
    So, Republicans, understand that this is your last chance to save America. That means save it politically and save it physically. You must get us back to where we should be constitutionally! There will be no do-overs on this one. Get this one wrong and there will never be another opportunity. You must put this country back on the road to individual liberty and limited government. Grow a pair and “get ‘er done!” We are counting on you! Your children and their children are counting on you! Do not let them down on this; they will not be able to forgive you if you squander this opportunity.

  • ihateliberals

    I am so disappointed with wht they did yesterday. There was nothing original baout the Pledge with America. It was a copy cat of the Contract with America. These are different times and they call for Different measures to solve the problems. The Republican Party i use to know would not take any guff from these liberals in DC. The Republican Party I see now isn’t much different than the Liberals in DC. The things we want to hear should fit on one page and not be 8000 words of gobilygook. What we want to hear is about TAxe cuts on individuals and I do mean everyone. We need tax beaks for companies that hire Americans and keep contracts on American soil. We want the Obamacare repealed (1st order of business) We dont want any knew government programs to start. We want medicare and soc sec to be reformed but not to affect the over 60 crowd. This can be done and everyone would be happy then. these are just a few of the things we didn’t hear a good plan fo yesterday. it is almost like they don’t want to win. It gets me how the Republican Party can’[t understand why the Tea party is gaining so much strength. If the GOP doens’t do something and real fast the only thng that is going to happen in November wil be how many seats they don’t get! That was pitiful display of being out of touch with US the voters.

  • NHConservative0227

    You, Erickson, and Glenn Beck are the only ones I’ve seen criticize this Pledge.

    I was disappointed to see Rush support it without any criticism.

    I knew Hannity would be waving the pom poms in full force.

    On his radio show, Beck agreed with a caller that it’s ridiculous only to take spending back to 2008 levels. Like Beck said, maybe take spending back to 1808 levels!!

    • NHConservative0227

      http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1962939&spid=32345

      At least from the show recap it looks like it has his full support. I didn’t actually listen to the whole thing yet, so maybe someone can correct me.

      Anyone know what Savage had to say about it?

      Looks like pretty much no one in the GOP media had anything bad to say about it. Rush was defending it from the claims from the Left that it was too radical. Duh! That’s a softball way of talking about it.

      I thought about actually calling into to Hannity about this yesterday after he had the young squirts on but I didn’t really thing it was worth it in the end to wait an hour or two on hold to maybe get to talk some sense into him for 20 seconds or so.

  • miguel Saavadera

    Short on specifics, way too long, and more of the ‘old’ GOP blue blood same.

    Not only do ALLl bills need to be written by the Congressional staff, the Congressmen/women READ it, note the Constitutional clause that allows it, and allow their constituents 72 hours to read and comment on it, NO BILL or pledge should be longer than the 4,400 word Constitution.

    Restrict Criminal Behavior ~ RE-ELECT NO ONE.

  • dwscho

    When I read the pledge I had a similar reaction to many posts here which believe it’s typical political fodder. I applaud them for at least coming up with a position. At least, they finally recognize they need one. We voters need to push them to adopt more aggressive positions.

    For exampple, I wholeheartedly support the repeal of Obamacare. But, I don’t support replacing it with something else which is nothing more than further manadates. The only thing I want them to do is to help eliminate the laws which restrict insurance companies from crossing state lines and then stay out of the way and let the free market find solutions. Providing health care isn’t a government mandate.

    The other pledge that jumped out at me was the way they focused on cutting the budget except for those areas relating to our security and defense. I say whatever cost increases needed for our security and defense should be taken out of other areas of the budget. Any control on the growth of the budget must relate to all spending and not allow exceptions.

    The pledge didn’t address immigration at all because they don’t have any solutions. As much as I would favor deporting all illegals, it’s not practical and won’t happen. I think we need to fiund a way to make them productive and have them pay their own way. Otherwise, they should be sent home. If an illegal wants to be a productive, contributing member of our society willing to adapt to our culture, I can’t honestly object to their wanting to better their lives and take care of their families. Yes, I would have preferred they came here legally. But, they didn’t. Let’s move on and let them become American citizens and contribute to society rather than being a burden to taxpayers.

    I have great hope for this election but, I am not so naive as to think the Republicans have learned a great lesson. It’s up to the people to stay on their butts to make sure they do what we want. Otherwise, we will need to throw them out and keep looking for representatives who understand.

    • miguel Saavadera

      Believe these clowns do not want to ‘stir the waters on the subject, however your premise of “can’t solve the situation” is incorrect.

      All we have to do is make over-staying, sneaking in illegally, or being here undocumented a FELONY, with a minimum one year in jail/prison the matter would resolve itself fairly quickly.

      The reason, IF you are found ‘in’ the United States as a convicted Felon, or are convicted as being one here ALL FURTHER ABILITIES TO legally IMMIGRATE ARE REMOVED. Forever. AND your ability to move about the globe in any way is also restricted (see case of Paris Hilton and entry to Japan).

      You can choose to stay, and take your chances, as many do now, or realize that a sobriety stop, or simple traffic stop, or even a simple thing such as witnessing a crime and being questioned by the police is going to end your life in the US forever (at least legally). I do not think most ‘law abiding’ illegals would be willing to go that distance.

      • dwscho

        Miquel, I don’t believe I said we “can’t solve the situation”. I think my statement was the Repubs don’t have a solution. I agree with your position about you break the law you go home. I was merely stating it isn’t practical to pack up 10 + million illegal immigrants and send them home.

        It is already illegal to enter the country without obtaining a vis, etc.. Putting people in jail for a year won’t accomplish much. It justs burdens the taxpayers to build more jails and support them while incarcerated. How does that resolve the problem. Illegals enter the country now with that threat hanging over them and it hasn’t stopped the flow.

        I was simply trying to say this is a complex problem and the politicians have no solutions other than granting amnesty. That will do nothing more than continue the waive of illegal entries.

  • Lesstressrx

    This is what I think. I believe that the Republican

    • Flagstaff

      And this is good:

      “The American people did not make these contracts with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.”

  • bobtx

    I’m as mad as anybody about our government, but I’ve never seen such nickpickiness! It’s a start! Did you want them to produce a 2000 page document like Obamacare? Geez! I can’t stand all this cynicism.

    • Dave_in_Fla

      I think all this rhetoric is way over the top, and has nothing to do with the actual document. It is just another excuse to kick “the establishment”.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
      • Christine (Trelaina)

        not in all our cases anyway.

        In my case, it’s telling the establishment that management is in place now and we intend to set job expectations and grade/evaluate representatives and senators on those expectations.

        It’s going to take awhile for everyone to set used to the new structure around here. We run the show now – well, we always did, but we let it run amok. It’s hard now to hear people say “not good enough”. But that’s what has to happen, or how does anyone know we’re really in charge?

        They don’t get to just sit up there and do what they want to do anymore. They do what WE want them to do or we fire them. Unless we set the goals, how will they know what is expected? If we just say “hey, we’re going to let you slide because you mean well” how will it EVER GET BETTER???

        I don’t see why this is such a big problem.

    • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

      But this was a band-aid laid over a suppurating wound because they don’t know how to treat it. So, instead, they’ll cover it up and ignore it while the patient (the country) continues to decline and ultimately dies.

  • aesthete

    is that one of the worst parts of ObamaCare (forcing insurance companies to take on people regardless of pre-existing conditions) is preserved in the “replacement” bill. They can’t even get it right when it comes to a 15-page document.

    • Flagstaff

      It’s a ridiculous bit of specificity that goes 180 degrees against the idea of following the Constitution. Plus, it isn’t even sustainable without government subsidies, which we are supposedly against.

  • aesthete

    is that one of the worst parts of ObamaCare (forcing insurance companies to take on people regardless of pre-existing conditions) is preserved in the “replacement” bill. They can’t even get it right when it comes to a 15-page fluff document.

  • emaberk

    All they have succeeded in doing is ruining any enthusiasm I had for seeing them takeover Congress. This is so disappointing. If they are trying to lose this election they are off to a great start.

  • dambama

    Seriously, I think this is a good start, considering this is from the group that has not yet been ejected by the voters.

    We have to be a little patient here. We are about to elect a whole new group of true Constitutional Conservatives who REALLY believe in limited government. I think this trend will continue in 2012.

    But let’s face it, it is going to take decades to totally reverse the last 100 years of Progressivism in this country. If Republicans push for everything we want RIGHT NOW we will scare off the uneducated independents and moderates.

    It is going to take some time to bring everyone up to speed on the freedom and liberty thing. We will get there and this represents a STEP in the right direction.

    • dambama

      I should have clarified my statement about uneducated independents and moderates. They are streaming to the Republican party already. The arguments for making NO “pledge” or “contract” recognize that ANY statement can be potentially harmful, and why risk it when you don’t need to.

      I think a general statement of principles, such as this pledge, is benign enough to remind voters of the basic principles Republicans believe in, without causing any unnecessary fights over Social Security and Medicare, right now.

      We need more Constitutional Conservatives to get elected in the next few election cycles before we can begin serious reform of the whole entitlement mentality that has been successfully pushed since Woodrow Wilson.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        I don’t. I think it’s an end point.

        The people on that stage have built their lives around promoting the expansion of government and “government services”. The document is a standard legalesque tome with high sounding phrases and no actual action plan. Certainly not an action plan to reduce the size and scope of government.

        Section 2 is the prime example. They talk about “spending cuts” without offering one department or program that will be “cut”. There is no discussion about the privatization of social security or medicare. Etc.

        • dambama

          But I believe we are seeing a change. Just look at the candidates Jim DeMint and the TEA Party have supported and who are likely to win in November. This will only encourage more true Conservatives to run in 2012.

          There is no way these Constitutional Conservatives will not push a limited government agenda forward. It will happen if we continue to support these types of candidates.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            I’m just old enough to have been enticed down this road with smooth talk before.

            And, you are right about DeMint and the people who hopefully will be coming into office next January. I’d love to see McConnell replaced by DeMint and any one of half a dozen people, other than the current House Minority Leader, become Speaker.

        • JSobieski

          suggests that you are right. Not saying that the roadmap is the end all/be all, but the fact that it is ignored by just about every R incumbent suggests that there aren’t a lot of folks interested in doing more than undoing Obama, and maybe some minor trimming.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            The best case scenario for us is that we take both the House and Senate. The leadership will then start the “fine-tuning” dance and the rationale will be that O will veto any repeal. They will specifically avoid making a really nasty fight over actually “undoing” anything that’s been done.

            That leaves us with an additional two years (at a minimum) for the bureaucracy to entrench regulation based on the law and bingo!, we have the Department of Education on steroids.

            I think what we actually will get will be a whole bunch of hearings, absolutely no action and certainly no indictments, maybe a couple of the more egregious appointees go away but no fundamental shift in policy.

          • JSobieski

            and whether the R’s would have the guts to do it.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            institutional memory.

          • acat

            The one where Bubba was getting ready to blink, and then Newt did.

            I don’t see the current leadership as willing to make much of a fight – too many of ‘em want to drive the big machine themselves, once they get those pesky Dems out of the way.

            Mew

  • http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/ kilowattradio

    Medicare: A lifetime cap of $100,000, double employee tax rates
    Medicaid: A lifetime cap of $ 70,000, eliminate EIC
    SS Disability: Eliminate & move *severely* disabled only to SSI
    SS Retirees: Future retirees pay reduced by 25% and means tested for retirees. A millionaire would get a greatly reduced SS benefit.
    SSI: Only for the *severely* physical & mentally disabled, no more people with a bad knee or depression being eligible for it.
    Food Stamps: There would only be a grant of up to $200 per HOUSEHOLD per month & the household must have children in it.
    End Earned Income Credit: This would save $40 billion. EIC is welfare for the working.
    Repeal Medicaid for the working poor in ObamaCare.
    In ObamaCare repeal subsidies and allow tax deductions.

    This would shave off $650 Billion in entitlements. As the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq are wrapped up we will save additional money.

    America’s ‘sky is the limit’ fiscal policy must end.

    IMHO.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      by a GOP Congress and President in 2013. Reality/Nature will reduce those, just as it has already rendered 20% of Americans in poverty.

      • acat

        whether it is a controlled but hard stop, or a crash. The Dems have squandered the opportunities for a gentle stop.

        Mew

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          the likely scenario is that the massive debt will be the cause of a crash before then

          • acat

            My goal right now is to hang onto the house long enough to watch the crack-up and then figure out what’s next.

            I’d be happier if it weren’t in Illinois, though.

            Mew

          • Xasteius
  • Pingback: My Homepage