The ten items are:

1. Please state your qualifications for the job and why those qualifications make you the best choice.

2. Please explain how you see the role of RNC Chairman.

3. Please outline how you see the role of RNC Chairman in terms of structuring the Republican message and platform.

4. Please outline your goals for internal reform and/or restructuring of the RNC.

5. Please explain your vision for expanding the GOP’s use of technology in the future and, in light of that, explain your preferred structure for the online apparatus of the RNC.

6. Please explain what steps and resources you would use to rebuild, reform, or otherwise repair state Republican parties that need restoration and/or strengthening.

7. Please explain what criteria you would use to vet and recruit winnable candidates.

8. Please explain how you would recruit effective candidates for the 2010 United States Senate races and how you would help those candidates.

9. Please explain why the Republican Party should remain a pro-life party.

10. Please explain what benchmarks you think would be fair to measure an RNC Chairman to determine if that Chairman has succeeded or failed in his task.

Likewise, we would encourage each of the candidates considering the RNC Chairman’s race to think about posting here at RedState why they are interested in being RNC Chairman. We’d be glad to put those posts on the front page.

National Democrats have made the defeat of Saxby Chambliss one of their top priorities this cycle. They never forgave him for defeating Max Cleland in 2002, and they have resented his conservative stance on issue after issue. They recognize that Chambliss is a vote against Barack Obama’s agenda of tax increases, profligate spending, radical education policies, and surrender in the war on terror. They know that Chambliss can be counted on to sustain filibusters against card check and giveaways to liberal constituencies

Beyond that, the liberal leadership in Washington D.C. recognizes that Chambliss’ vote is critical. They have already secured 57 votes in the Senate, and if they manage to win the three remaining races, they’ll attain their longstanding goal of a filibuster-proof majority. We can’t count on our lawyers being shrewder than their lawyers in Alaska and Minnesota as the only way to preserve 41 votes in the U.S. Senate. We need a clean victory in Georgia that creative vote counting can’t take away.

As Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid begin to plan their agenda for the years ahead, conservatives must not let up until the 2008 elections are concluded. And that means doing everything we can to re-elect Saxby Chambliss today. After all, regardless what happens in other races, we can’t gamble that all Senate Republicans will stick together on every radical proposal from the Obama administration. Some may vote in favor of some Democratic initiatives; some may be replaced by Democrats in the next few years. In other words, 41 Senate Republicans may not be enough to prevent the enactment of terrible policies. We need to re-elect principled conservatives like Saxby Chambliss at every opportunity.

Please consider making a donation to Saxby Chambliss today. Or consider backing the effort of an independent group such as Freedom’s Watch, which is up and running in Georgia today with an ad that explains Jim Martin’s terrible record of tax increases:

And if you can’t donate to support this effort, there are other ways that you can help out. Please consider signing up as a volunteer. Anything you do today will help promote good government for the next 6 years — or more.

We have no preferences in these races yet. But we have a question that Messrs. McConnell, Boehner, and Blunt must answer:

How are you qualified to lead after two consecutive elections of significant losses?

There are others who are just as qualified to lead, some might argue more qualified to lead.

in the Senate, there are Senators Kyl and Cornyn. In the House, there are Congressmen Ryan of Wisconsin and Cantor of Virginia.

They are able men.

If Messrs. McConnell, Boehner, and Blunt cannot adequately explain why they deserve to keep the reins of power given two consecutive elections of losses, we must ask that they step aside.

The voters have spoken. They have rejected the status quo again. The present leadership is part of the same Republican status quo voters rejected two years ago — now rejected a second time.

The present leadership better have an excellent answer to the question posed.

Thirty years came quickly.

The nation has moved beyond what was. We congratulate President-elect Obama on a well fought battle won well.

We also thank Senator McCain and urge Governor Palin to stay involved and engaged. (Pssst . . . Governor Palin, we’ve got room for one more contributor here if you’re interested.)

We now look forward to the fight ahead and we do intend to continue the fight for America.

Adelman’s statement is the nadir of this genre:

I’d rather a competent moderate president. Even at a risk, since Obama lacks lots of executive experience displaying competence (though his presidential campaign has been spot-on). And since his Senate voting record is not moderate, but depressingly liberal. Looming in the background, Pelosi and Reid really scare me.
Nonetheless, I concluded that McCain would not — could not — be a good president. Obama just might be.
That’s become good enough for me — however much of a triumph (as Dr. Johnson said about second marriages) of hope over experience.

If Obama is a “moderate,” the word has lost its meaning, and even Adelman is forced to admit that he has no basis whatsoever for concluding that Obama will govern as a moderate, nor even that he possesses basic competence as an executive. Here’s a thought experiment: pick three issues of any public consequence; describe the predominant position of the Democratic Party; describe with any degree of specificity and honesty Senator Obama’s record and proposals; and explain how that position places him to the right of the bulk of his party. The difficulty of the task - and the ease of coming up with a far, far longer contrasting list of issues on which he has been to the Left of his own, already liberal party - should disabuse any reasonable person of the notion that Obama is any sort of moderate within the context of the American political spectrum.

If Barack Obama is elected next Tuesday, it will be with the collaboration of all of these people, and that fact should damn their judgment on all matters political for the rest of their lives. A year from now, if Obama wins, no one will care what they thought about McCain or about Palin. All that will matter, and justly so, is that they aided the most left-wing and least-experienced and least-accomplished presidential candidate in the past century to capture the commanding heights of American government. The consequences of that decision for everything these people have ever worked for in their own professional lives shall be on their heads daily.

Now, let us not be misunderstood as to two points. First, Republicans and conservatives need not be blind or mute to the flaws of our own side. We have primaries for that purpose, and even in a general election we should not hesitate to provide constructive criticism. Nobody will accuse Rush Limbaugh, for example, of being unaware of John McCain’s shortcomings as a conservative, nor have we at RedState been secretive about our discomfort with some of his history and positions. We do not call for mindless partisan shilling but for advocacy that is honest, principled and forthright. On rare occasions, we may even recommend voting for a responsible Democrat for office where the Republican alternative is deficient or corrupt. But there is a difference, especially in tone, between constructive and destructive criticism. (Some Republicans and conservatives who could not in good conscience endorse the McCain-Palin ticket for one reason or another have at least maintained a respectful silence on it, or have focused their efforts entirely on educating the public about Obama.) And there is most certainly a difference between endorsing a halfway-acceptable Democrat and endorsing one whose record contains no shred of moderation and heaping gobs of left-wing extremism for the highest office in the land.

Second, we well understand that if Obama is elected, it will be with the votes of many people who have supported Republicans in the past, including many who voted for George W. Bush and other conservatives in 2000, 2002 and 2004. A good many of those people have genuine reasons to be unhappy with the GOP, in some cases reasons we ourselves share. We as a movement and as a party will need to win back the support of those voters, and we do not suggest that the Right should abandon the idea of a big-tent majority coalition in favor of strict ideological and partisan purity. Nor, if we lose, should we take out our frustrations on the voters.

But when numbers of ordinary, non-politically-obsessed voters have been led astray by the siren calls of Obama and his media and money machines, it is in part because our movement and our Party have suffered a failure of leadership. And leadership is precisely the role that has been forfeited by anyone who has lent their support to Obama’s effort to defeat McCain-Palin and take the White House - anyone who could and should have seen the dangers posed by an Obama Administration and raised instead the alarm against the last line of defense standing in his way. We will welcome them back - as voters, as listeners, as followers. But we will never again trust their judgment.

We stand at a perilous moment in American politics, with thereal possibility that the Democrats could get to 60 votes in the Senate. This is no time for litmus tests of party loyalty, for abandoning our own. But we must make one exception: good conscience compels us to advise Alaskans not to vote for Ted Stevens for Senate or Don Young for the at-large House seat in Alaska. We leave it to the individual voter whether to abstain or take the step of voting affirmatively for Mark Begich, the Democrat mayor of Anchorage, and candidate for the U.S. Senate, or for Ethan Berkowitz for the at-large House seat in Alaska.

We have no illusions that Begich will be a good Senator (although perhaps he can bring to DC some bipartisan oomph to theneed to exploit Alaska’s energy resources for the good of the nation), or Berkowitz a good Congressman. But Ted Stevens and Don Young have been a pox on the Republican house for too long - too addicted to the pork barrel, too fast and loose with ethics. Stevens’ conviction in federal court today is the exclamation pointon an era in Republican politics in general and Alaska politics in particular that needs to end (and which Gov. Sarah Palin has been battling to clean up). Republicans need to clean our own house. Washington cannot too soon see the end of Stevens and Young.

Our friends who take seriously the future of America as a non-left-wing country with a viable party of the Right should reconsider lending any support to this venture. Under the normal rules of politics, we would accept the idea that Obama, after winning, would inevitably overreach to the Left, leading to a backlash from which Republicans could rebuild a new and better GOP in 2010 and 2012, as we did in 1980 and 1994 after the last two Democratic presidents overreached and underperformed. But this assumes that Obama’s agenda will be mostly about policy, and will seek by traditional means to persuade a center-right voting public to support a European-style left-wing social-democrat government.

In fact, it is highly likely that Obama and the Congressional Democrats will instead concentrate major efforts on a number of longstanding policy priorities are aimed at stacking the deck to change the electorate and the political process themselves, and thus entrenching themselves in long-term power without ever needing again to persuade a center-right electorate to support their policies. Let’s look at a number of examples of things the Democrats are likely to do with their new majority to bring this about:

(1) Card Check: The vanguard of this movement to redistribute political power to the Left - the sign you will see early on to know that an Obama Administration is prioritizing political entrenchment - is legislation with the Orwellian title of the Employee Free Choice Act, which was stopped in this Congress only by GOP filibuster. The “card check” bill puts its thumb on the scales of union organizing in a number of ways, most notoriously by eliminating the secret ballot in union elections, allowing workers to be coerced to form unions which will then route coerced union dues to the Democratic party.

(2) Same-Day Voter Registration: Another longstanding priority of left-wing groups like ACORN - and near and dear to Obama’s heart as a man who came up through the PIRGs and has made voter-registration and recruitment the central theme of his career - is mandate that every state allow people to register and vote on the same day. The downside, of course, is that this precludes efforts to follow up before Election Day to make sure that a voter has registered at a bona fide address, among other things. It’s an invitation to voter fraud. Yet liberal writers are insistent, in the face of all evidence, common sense and understanding of human nature and political history, that voter fraud does not exist and that all precautions against it are misguided at best and racist at worst.

(3) Abolish Voter Identification Requirements: Relatedly, the Left was frustrated when the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s law requiring voters to present a valid form of identification. Expect federal moves against such state laws as well, whether through legislation or by action of the Justice Department (we’ve already seen career DOJ prosecutors move against wholly truthful political speech designed to warn non-citizens against voting). Like same-day registration, this is a maneuver primarily to empower corrupt urban political machines.

(4) Quash Investigations of Voter Fraud: Of course, it would be embarrassing to these efforts if investigations turned up voter fraud by ACORN during the 2008 election. So naturally, an Obama Justice Department will view voter fraud investigations as something to be investigated themselves, as evidenced by its call for a special prosecutor to investigate voter fraud investigators. This is a sure-fire way to send the message that any prosecutor who looks for evidence of voter fraud can kiss a career in an Obama Administration - and maybe even his or her liberty - goodbye.

(5) The Fairness Doctrine: With the mainstream media thoroughly in the tank for Obama, conservatives have had to rely on the alternative outlets - talk radio, blogs, conservative magazines, and the one network - Fox News - that at least gives conservatives a fair shake. This option, though, wasn’t always available: before 1987, the FCC’s so-called “Fairness Doctrine” required that “equal time” be given to opinion programming (but not opinion masquerading as “news”), which as a practical matter made conservative talk radio - long more popular than liberal alternatives, given among other things the greater conservative need for alternative media - uneconomical (it’s no accident that Rush Limbaugh went national in 1988). Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine has been a long-cherished goal on the Left. Obama, of course, would particularly love to remake Fox News; he blamed the network for his loss in the Kentucky primary and now argues that it’s unfairly hampering his presidential campaign:

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls,” Obama told liberal journalist Matt Bai. “[T]he way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?” …”I guess the point I’m making,” he went on, “is that there is an entire industry now, an entire apparatus, designed to perpetuate this cultural schism, and it’s powerful.

This might be regarded as a typical example of a politician complaining about press coverage, were it not for the history - here’s the Heritage Foundation in 1993 explaining the operation of the Fairness Doctrine and discussing efforts to revive it by legislation the last time Democrats controlled the White House and Congress, a 2005 article making some of the Left’s arguments for restoring it, and a 2008 talk with a current FCC Commissioner on how the Fairness Doctrine could make a comeback and be applied to the internet. More here and here.

(6) Campaign Finance Reform on Steroids: Democrats are still bitter about the independent ads run by groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, engaging in free and open debate on subjects - like the Democratic nominee’s own life history and past political activities - that Republican campaigns were too timid to touch. Obama talks frequently about “swift boating” and has complained incessantly about how it’s beyond the pale to run ads about his own career. (Obama has also been known to send threatening letters like this one about an NRA ad). Even recognizing that Senator McCain is also no friend of independent advocacy groups, it’s the Democrats who are likely to have a major axe to grind in 2009 to shut down such groups and exclude them from political debate in the future.

(7) A House seat for DC: The District of Columbia has a unique political status - it enjoys subsidies from the federal government and 3 electoral votes for President far out of proportion to its population. In return, DC operates under federal supervision and has no votes in Congress. But there have been moves by the Democrats in recent Congresses, which nearly succeeded, to take a House seat away from the states and give it to DC, the most reliably Democratic locale in the entire nation. (A more extreme step would be DC statehood or adding two Senators without formal statehood. Either, like the House seat, would be unconstitutional, which brings us to our next point).

(8) Liberal Judges: The best and surest way to reduce the scope in which a center-right electorate can operate is to have the federal judiciary take more and more issues entirely and permanently out of the hands of voters, and take the meaning of the constitution and of legislation out of the hands of the people’s representatives. Obama is certain to appoint life-tenured federal judges, including probably at least two Supreme Court Justices, who will impose their own preferences (or worse yet, unelected international law) on American democracy.

(9) Census Sampling: A major demographic trend is working against the Democrats, as population shifts from blue states in the Northeast and industrial Midwest to redder states in the South and Southwest. Certainly the Democrats have tried to win over voters in those states, but another way to battle demographics is to change how you count. In 1999, the Supreme Court held that current federal law required that the 2000 Census use an actual count of people, rather than applying a “sampling” formula backed by the Democrats to “estimate” population, a method subject to manipulation and which was argued to be helpful to Democratic-leaning urban areas. The Bush Administration then blocked efforts to impose “sampling” on the 2000 Census. Expect renewed efforts to use it on the 2010 Census, so as to skew redistricting in Democrats’ favor.

(10) Voting Rights Act Bigfooting of the Redistricting Process: Another way for the federal government to interfere in redistricting is to use the Justice Department’s powers under the Voting Rights Act to manipulate district lines and block “preclearance” of new districts, often under the guise of preserving racial minority-held seats (long a pet cause of Senator Obama dating back to his State Senate days). Expect moves by the Democrats to use DOJ to draw legislative lines in their favor after 2010, regardless of how elections go at the state level.

(11) Immigration: If you don’t like the voters, get new ones. You don’t have to be anti-immigrant to notice that massive waves of non-English-speaking entrants to the voting process, combined with elimination of ballot security and the new entrants’ lack of grounding in American values, could swamp the current electorate. Obama’s attitude towards immigration is best shown in two ways: his sponsorship of a bill in Illinois to give drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens and his support of biligual education, which is an educational failure best suited to keeping Latinos locked in a linguistic ghetto cut off from the American mainstream. Here again, John McCain has been a supporter as well of “comprehensive immigration reform,” but McCain has pledged his own supporters that he will tackle border security first, he doesn’t have Obama’s history of offering governmental benefits and identification specifically to illegal aliens, and he’ll be constrained in other ways by his party.

(12) Voting Rights For Felons: Another Democratic constituency is convicted felons. Prepare for a major push to restore felon voting rights.

These are not the only ways in which we may see efforts to entrench the Left. Obama’s tax plan will create a newly enlarged group of citizens dependent on government handouts. The Left may also press to abolish the hated Electoral College, thus nationalizing the effects of ballot-box stuffing anywhere in the country, although it’s less clear that this will actually be on the agenda.

Now, if you were the Left, and you wanted to prioritize political entrenchment over persuasion, who would you choose as your candidate? A man with no real experience governing but years of experience organizing, a man who has structured his campaign as a movement centered on new voters that sends its recruits to Camp Obama.

And what would be the keystone of any public relations effort to prepare the ground for changing the political structure of the nation to marginalize the current center-right electorate and create a ‘post-partisan’ (i.e., one-party) political future? You would seek to delegitimize the Right by portraying it as a violent and dangerous mob in need of governmental supervision. You’d tell everyone that unfettered debate is too scary because Republicans are unstable and easily inflamed to violence. And that’s exactly what the Left and the media have been doing in this campaign.

The most obvious example of this, recounted here and here and here by Walter Olson, is calls by liberal bloggers to prosecute McCain and Palin for criminal incitement for their criticisms of Barack Obama. But there are many examples of emphasis in the media or by the Democrats and their prominent supporters on stories - the bulk of them false or severely distorted - suggesting that Republican crowds are dangerously angry due to supposedly false rhetoric or simply tough arguments about Senator Obama’s past - see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Indeed, Senator Obama himself made this argument, citing false news stories, in the third debate. Meanwhile, actually dangerous and violent behavior or extremist, hate-filled rhetoric from the Left is downplayed or wholly ignored - see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

We can’t allow Barack Obama the opportunity to remake America in the image of foreign countries. We can’t allow the center-right electorate that has sustained our nation as the last, best hope of mankind to be silenced, marginalized or extinguished. This is a battle that will be fought on many fronts over the next several years, but the most important front will be on Election Day. Today’s GOP isn’t perfect - win or lose this election, there’s more work to be done to clean our own house. But those who don’t join the fight against Obama on November 4 may end up finding there’s nowhere left to go to fight him later.

For the past several months, John McCain has ridden the energy issue, moreso than any other single issue, to the top of the polls. Governor Palin, one of the nation’s leading proponents of domestic energy production, further solidifies John McCain as the candidate who takes the energy issue seriously.

To endorse the Gang of 16 plan would undermine Senator McCain’s credibility on the issue. In addition to the terrible politics of the plan for Republicans, the plan itself is terrible, terrible policy.

*Right now, if we do nothing, the entire Outer Continental Shelf (”OCS”) will open up for exploration on October 1, 2008. * Under the Gang of 16 plan, most of the OCS, roughly 80%, will remain locked up. John McCain has favored opening up the OCS. His support of this plan would directly contradict his call for expanded exploration.

The plan would only allow drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the coasts of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Even then, it would not open up those areas, but allow those states to opt in to a burdensome, confiscatory federal leasing program. And still, drilling could not take place less than fifty miles from the coast, taking coastal reserves off the table.

The plan would also, for the first time, permanently ban drilling in all other OCS locations. Currently, the ban must be renewed annually.

10 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable off the Pacific Coast.

10 billion barrels of oil and 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable in ANWR.

2 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable in the Atlantic.

That is 29 years worth of imports from the Persian Gulf still untouchable and inaccessible because of the Gang of 16’s plan.

John McCain says he wants to decrease our dependence on foreign dictators. To endorse this plan to would give the lie to that claim.

Even worse, the Gang of 16 would add an additional $30 billion in tax increases to the energy industry. That is a tax increase they would pass on to consumers in the form of higher fuel prices. This is a punitive tax. Any Economics 101 student can tell you a punitive tax will hamper efforts, not expand efforts in the taxed industry. The Institute for Energy Research estimates 637,000 jobs would be lost because of the plan.

Likewise, the Gang of 16 would increase charges to oil companies for extraction of oil from the Gulf of Mexico. They would make it more expensive to drill for oil — a cost that would either keep the energy industry from drilling or drive up costs for consumers.

Lastly, the plan would do nothing to curtail environmentalist organizations from suing to stop expanded energy production ? a tactic that has successfully delayed and, in some cases, completely stopped exploration of domestic energy reserves.

John McCain and Sarah Palin say they are the real reformers. Driving up the costs of doing business and half hearted compromises are “politics as usual” solutions from Washington. Today, the opponents of buying American energy are on the ropes; this is no time to let them off the hook. A McCain-Palin Administration, if elected, will have an unambiguous mandate to expand all sources of domestic energy production, and will be able to command bipartisan support for a truly comprehensive energy solution.

John McCain should oppose the plan, and unleash Sarah Palin to demonstrate her experience and expertise on energy issues. And if today’s Congress can’t or won’t choose a real plan for domestic energy production, Sen. McCain, Gov. Palin and Capitol Hill Republicans should trust the American people to make that choice for them on Election Day.

And that is Obama’s greatest failing - for all his fancy promises of hope and change, at his core, he is just like every leftist messiah we have seen before: a man wandering the world convinced of his rightness and purity, with no answers to offer but the collapsed policies of the past. There was nothing new there other than a new face.

Barack Obama claims to offer change. He said several times tonight that John McCain had been in the Senate for so long that . . . well, we don’t really remember. The point was not memorable. What is memorable is that Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s pick for Vice President has been in the Senate longer than John McCain. In fact, Barack Obama attacked John McCain’s support of bankruptcy legislation that Joe Biden sponsored.

Throughout the night we were treated to Barack Obama yelling into the microphone telling us he was an agent of change. Reading his words, we are struck that Barack Obama really is an agent of change. He will change the policies of the last thirty years in favor of the populist, leftist policies advocated by Jimmy Carter.

The shallowness of Barack Obama came out in his speech. It really is all about him, despite what he claimed.

And Barack Obama is an agent of change we cannot afford.

“I can’t spare this man,” Lincoln said. “He fights.”

What John McCain requires in a Vice Presidential choice today is an individual who exhibits the best qualities of an intelligent political fighter. He needs a hard worker – a loyal, principled leader – an individual whose reputation is above reproach. And we are convinced that in this case, the right choice is clear.

Pitted in a deadlocked campaign against an eloquent yet inexperienced young evangelist of Hope and Change, McCain requires an individual who with every argument will prove that the Obama-Biden ticket is uninterested in real change or reform. He or she must be equipped to make the case that the ideas they espouse today are the same tried and failed liberal solutions that Biden has supported in his 36 year Senate career – the vestiges of the Great Society made shiny and new for a generation of voters who has no memory of their destructive effects on the nation. He or she must possess a bright policy mind and a telegenic demeanor for explaining these policies in the course of the ongoing debate. And in an election this divisive, McCain’s choice must be prepared to fight for new areas of the voting populace, expanding the center-right footprint while simultaneously inspiring the portion of the grassroots base still unenthused with the top of the ticket, and not threaten to break the delicate coalition of the willing who have swallowed their pride to support a former political foe.

One of these tasks alone would not be easy – together, they seem nigh impossible. Yet it is our great fortune today to be blessed with an individual who has all of these qualities and abilities. He is a hard worker, bright, capable and principled. He is a family man, strong in his values, his faith, and his character. And he is truly a man of the right.

He is the Congressman from Virginia, Eric Cantor.

While a young man, Cantor has served in federal office twice as long as Barack Obama - and was a member of leadership when Obama was still in Springfield. In that short time, he has established himself as a dedicated and intelligent member of the House. As the Chief Deputy Whip, he has proved to be an organizer, an innovator, and a natural leader. His knowledge of foreign affairs is above what one would expect from a member of the House, and as a devout Jew, he is one of Israel’s greatest allies in Washington and has a wide range of evangelical supporters. He is pro-life without reservation, a strong supporter of gun rights, a fiscal conservative and a loyal advocate for the war on terror. And beyond being a member from a state McCain must carry to win in November, Cantor has proven himself as one of the best fundraisers in the House, with a massive base of support in New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

Above all, though, Cantor is a good man – ethical, motivated and hard working. He is the kind of choice who best represents the face of the conservative movement in the decades to come. We would relish the opportunity to seem him in a debate with Joe Biden, and we have no doubt that he would win.

Cantor’s selection would be welcomed by conservatives, applauded by most moderates, and inspire confusion and revealingly insulting attacks from the left.

It would elevate a strong young voice for principled conservative reform to the national stage, not merely for political gain, but because he deserves the platform. And it would cement McCain’s election as something that is not just a block against four years of Obama-Biden, but a positive good for the center-right coalition for the future.

John McCain’s story is one of determined heroism in the face of torture and fear. It is a story that is profoundly moving. Though few of us at Redstate supported McCain in the primary, all of us view him as a patriot.

John McCain makes people of all political stripes proud to be American. Eric Cantor will make you proud to be a Republican.

We need him. He fights.

Make no mistake about it, it would so dishearten the base we can spend the next few months practicing saying “President Obama.”

In short, there is no room for negotiation on the issue. There is no choice but life on this issue.

Senator McCain should be mindful of his status - he was not the consensus first choice of a voting majority of Republicans in the presidential primary, and instead won by amassing enough plurality wins in key contests to achieve victory. And of his potential choices for Vice President, those who would sell out the pro-life movement would also offend numerous current McCain supporters on other significant issues as well.

Should Senator John McCain choose a pro-choice running mate, we are comfortably enough in touch with the Republican base to say without hesitation that the majority of the base would sit this race out. And we could not blame them for it.

Pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America, you can compel the House of Representatives and Senate to convene in special session.

You, Mr. President, can force the Democrats to either vote on energy legislation or not.

Mr. President, members of your party are on the floor of the House of Representatives in the dark as we write this because the Speaker of the House turned off the lights on them and skipped town. The Republicans are fighting to reduce the price of gasoline at the pump. They are fighting for American families. Democrats have turned their backs on the American people.

Normally Mr. President, the American people are better served when Congress is not in session. At this time, however, you should call the Democrats’ bluff. Recall the Congress to Washington to vote on expanding domestic oil production.

Sincerely,

RedState.com

PS - You can call the White House and ask the President to call a Special Session. The number to call is 202-456-1111.

We are not saying this is fair.  We are not saying we approve.  We are saying it is happening and if McCain doesn’t do something—soon—to correct the situation Iraq could become a big problem for his campaign and that is something he cannot afford.

It doesn’t have to be this way, though.  We have a suggestion that might change the tenor of the debate over Iraq and give McCain a big issue around which he can build other aspects of his campaign message.  Something positive, optimistic, forward looking—and, as icing on the cake, something Barack Obama cannot do.

Senator McCain should declare victory in Iraq.  And he should be generous in sharing the credit with our Iraqi allies.

The two hits McCain took are as follows:

For starters, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki appeared to endorse Obama’s most recent deadline for troop withdrawals.  Then McCain declared that the “Anbar Awakening” began with the troop surge of 2007. 

Now we know—believe us we know—that there are issues of translation, context etc., but the fact remains that Obama got in and out of Iraq unscathed–actually with his position on the war burnished–while McCain has had a lot of ’splaining to do, and the resulting confusion has been damaging.

So what’s to be done?  It seems to us that in both cases the problem stems from McCain’s insistence on the primacy of the increased US troop levels in the success of the surge.  The narrative McCain has used to explain improved conditions in Iraq (Bush/Rumsfeld/fewer troops=Failure, McCain/Petreaus/more troops=Success) was a politically expedient way to distance the candidate from an unpopular and difficult period of the war while allowing him to continue to support the effort. 

Unfortunately, this version of events has turned into a liability and threatens to backfire.  Looking at the events of last week, it might explain the remarks of the Iraqi prime minister,  who took office in May, 2006 and probably likes to think his effectiveness is not as “new found” as McCain declared it to be in his recently rejected (but that’s another issue) New York Times op-ed.  The hostility towards Maliki displayed by Max Boot (who’s an advisor to McCain) in the Washington Post was equally unfortunate.  After all, Maliki’s the one who had the guts to hang Saddam Hussein by the neck until dead before the President requested a single surge troop.  So how about celebrating the fact that the Iraqis are exercising their rights as a sovereign, independent nation?  That’s a win.  Obama could never call it that.

Then there’s Anbar.  As with Maliki, however, there’s a date problem.  Elements of the Anbar awakening were appearing as early as spring ‘06, and were apparent by the fall, and pretty much everyone who thinks there’s a glimmer of hope for Iraq agrees that the shift away from al Qaeda in Anbar was a critical–if not the critical–change in circumstance that has fueled the developments in Iraq 2007-08.  Obama has similarly inverted the timeline when he suggested that the events in Anbar were caused by the election of a Democratic Congress in the fall of 2006 - but then, nobody expects Obama to get his facts straight on Iraq.  McCain doesn’t get that pass.  But he shouldn’t need it here–he could just as effectively use Anbar as a demonstration of the independent ability of the Iraqis to manage their own affairs, not to mention the ingenuity and skill of our troops who helped the process along.  It is a good thing, no matter when it happened. 

Other similar issues lurk.  The training of the Iraqi Security Forces, for example, which was taking place under none other than General Petreaus in 2005, could be a problem if McCain continues to insist the General is exclusively part of his new plan.  Given Petraeus’ popularity, it would indeed be a shame if he became part of McCain’s Iraq problem.

And, as we said, it doesn’t have to be this way.

In his “Anbar” interview with Katie Couric, McCain said something that has gotten completely lost in the “chicken and egg” sniping over the surge.  He said, “We will come home in victory.”  Now that should be what everyone is talking about.  That is the theme to hammer.  It’s positive, and puts McCain on the offensive rather than the defensive at a moment when he can still seize the initiative in this race.  Let the other stuff go.

We think American voters are more likely to embrace victory—to embrace a winner—than to thread these dubious needles of shifting blame and responsibility.  Leave the triangulating to Obama.  Tergiversation is his forte.  But victory is something to be celebrated, not parsed.  McCain can come out and say “We Won!  They Lost!” and declare victory over al Qaeda—and then tie this to our hopes for free allies and trading partners in strategic locations, our need for allies that produce abundant hydrocarbons while we pursue energy independence, and, most of all, our hopes for another seven years free from terrorist attacks on the US.  It’s  a much more attractive message than “I was Right and Everyone Else was Wrong.”
 
At the end of the week McCain again made headlines when he announced he would rather lose an election and win a war.  We reject this defeatist rhetoric.  How about saying he wants to win a war and an election?

But we’re here. Behind the scenes there are some issues we’re going to have to work on. Overall, however, the site is working. The feedback on the new interface has been tremendously positive. The general sense is that this platform is much easier to use. That’s what we hoped for.

Getting us to this point has not been easy. First, thanks to those of you who contributed to the effort.

Second, we want to thank our own Neil Stevens and Eagle Publishing’s Robert Melton and Henry Rivera. There are few indispensable people on this planet. But for us, these three gentlemen are indispensable and integral to us getting to this point.

Starting tomorrow, we’re going to kick things into high gear. We’ll have some posts from notable conservatives, a special 3.0 launch podcast with a great friend of RedState, and through out the week a lot of front page guest posters. Along the way, a select few of you will also discover you have access to RedHot.

Now, let us repeat one thing on here. We know there are some who just cannot get excited about the 2008 Presidential election. We intend to fight and win this election for the GOP. But if you find yourself having a hard time with that race, focus on your community, your state, your congressman, or a congressman of your choice. Use the Get Local option. Turn to the politics of your community and state. Aim, fight, and win. Politics ain’t beanbag, but it’s not all presidential politics all the time either.

At RedState, we continue to fight on and hope you’ll stick with us for the fight ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RedState friend Jon Henke reminded us a few days ago about the left’s agenda — or at least, the agenda the left is willing to blog about. You can take a gander here. On the whole, their cause includes:

• crippling a worker’s right to decide whether or not to join a union
• crippling a business’s right to decide what salary an employee should be paid
• crippling an individual’s right to decide on healthcare options outside the government
• crippling the ability of the military to defend the country abroad
• crippling free speech in radio
• crippling rights to own a gun and defend yourself
• crippling the freedom to practice your religion without government interference
• crippling the ability of the United States to grow economically outside of government mandates.

In fact, just days ago, Democrat Rep. Maurice Hinchley announced his favored solution to America’s energy problems: nationalizing the refinery sector. Forget the free market – forget the capitalist economy that made the country the envy of the world – in this area as in all others, the Democrats oppose the Freedom of Choice in directing your life.

Well, all areas but one. The only significant choice the Democrats will defend for an individual is to have the power to determine whether or not to destroy the life of their unborn child.

This is their only claim to the language of choice. It is a false claim. We do not believe this is a valid choice to be made, nor ever has in the course of human history, because it enables the purposeful destruction of innocent life. Where once the pro-abortion left could make their argument based on ignorance of the process of human development, we now know the only choice the Democrats advocate is one that in almost every case kills a feeling, thinking American at its youngest and most vulnerable stage of life, whose only crime is one of inconvenience.

We believe in Individual Freedom of Choice – preserving the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – where the Left’s agenda is to cripple the individual’s freedom to choose, and replace it with dependence on government.

This is not new, but it is what we will have should the Democrats get to sixty seats in the Senate. The Republican Party should not be shy about fighting to give people choices, regardless of whether the Democrats claim to be the “pro-choice” party when they are, in fact, only supporting choices made for death, and state control of everything else of importance.

It is time for the GOP to push forward expanding choices for individuals and families to give them a greater stake in their lives and provide them ownership of their life as a whole. It is time to pose this question to the American people: who should have the power to choose the path for your life, for your family? To choose where you receive health care, where your children learn, and where your tax dollars go? Should it be the self-appointed elite, intent on building a perfect society, because they know what is best for the communal citizenry? Or should it be you, with your own goals in mind, for the simple reason that you are an American?

This nation is at a tipping point. We will either go toward more government control of our lives, which is what the Left wants, or less government control of our lives. When people have the power to direct their own lives, government will shrink – and it will be hard, once an individual has control of his own life, to cede this control back to Washington. We believe that Republicans in government should fight to expand our choices, so we can take greater control of our lives. We believe in Freedom of Choice.

(PDF version)