One of the best stories of today's Republican debate on CNN is what questions will CNN choose. The questions do come from the public, but they will be picked out by a panel now doubt. So in a GOP primary, will they reflect republican issues, or will they be driven by a progressive agenda?
I think it is safe to say we will get a solid dose of global warming questions that assume it as a fact. I have no doubt we will get at least one question vilifying George Bush and "his war". But will they get illegal immigration, border security, and pork barrel spending covered?
I predict at least 20 minutes of horse race questions. Completely useless items about why you are gaining, losing, or not showing up in the polls. I will say this, I am very excited to see the candidates show their stuff and I hope to be won over by someone. Anyone...
Any predictions?
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The Republican Nomination: A free and open debate for the Party
Republicans,
We need to start thinking about the race in front of us in a different way. According to Real Clear Politics, there are five serious contenders for the nomination. (plus Ron Paul). Rather than lament that their isn't a perfect candidate to get behind, we need to embrace the debate for the candidate of our party. The Wednesday YouTube debate on CNN should be a true test of these leaders and whether or not they can run the country.
Republican party members will be watching the debate in huge numbers. They are honestly waiting for a candidate to express their views and to pick the candidate they are willing to support. The Democrats are leading the money races in huge figures, but that is just because GOP dollars are still waiting on the sidelines. On the 28th we will judge these men on character, elect ability, policies and record. May the best candidate win.
Who do you support?
Myself, I have still not solidified on a candidate. I have donated a few dollars to both McCain and Huckabee to support them staying in the race. But I could still end up supporting Romney or Giuliani if they convince me that they are ready. So at the end of the debate, I will either be still undecided or firmly in someone's camp.
McCain is the war / foreign policy strong man. He is tough and knowledgeable on international issues. The senator knows you can't trust the UN, but can reach out to allies and speak tough to enemies. His campaign finance legislation and comprehensive immigration reform stand might be too much to overcome though. He has to convince me he learned from those two errors for me to give him my vote.
Giuliani wins if you dislike crime and you are a social moderate. The only way I end up in his camp is after he wins the nomination. I could support a pro-choice candidate, but only after my pro-life candidate lost in the primary. He does great in one-liners and would be an effective leader. I just disagree with him on too many issues.
Huckabee is an attractive candidate that comes off as the everyman. I would be most comfortable with him in a room. He says the right things on border security and spending, but his spending record looks pretty liberal. On the moral issues, he has a strong Christian faith and I think he would lead morally to help the American family. But some of his comments on healthcare have sounded too much like "nanny state" and not enough towards "personal responsibility".
Governor Romney can also lead on the moral issues. Like Huckabee he is founded by his faith in God. I admit, as an evangelical Christian I have a preference towards supporting someone of my faith. But most important to me is that our leader have faith and truly believe in what he exposes. So despite our disagreement on doctrine, I think he could make a great nominee. But he is a little too "slick willy" or "Breck Girl" with his fancy hair cuts and perfectly tailored message. I am right with him on the issues, I just have to decide if I believe him or not.
Fred Thomson is in the race only in the polls. I was in his camp for a month until his campaign started. By the time he had got in, I had checked out. Plus he looks like a dead fish in interviews and debates. As the drive bys say, no gravitas.
So despite the commenting rules, this post is open to blatant support of a candidate. Promote, link, or whatever, just try to keep them short.
Contribute your opinions to the GOP Grassroots Platform 2008. Version 2 coming soon.
We need to start thinking about the race in front of us in a different way. According to Real Clear Politics, there are five serious contenders for the nomination. (plus Ron Paul). Rather than lament that their isn't a perfect candidate to get behind, we need to embrace the debate for the candidate of our party. The Wednesday YouTube debate on CNN should be a true test of these leaders and whether or not they can run the country.
Republican party members will be watching the debate in huge numbers. They are honestly waiting for a candidate to express their views and to pick the candidate they are willing to support. The Democrats are leading the money races in huge figures, but that is just because GOP dollars are still waiting on the sidelines. On the 28th we will judge these men on character, elect ability, policies and record. May the best candidate win.
Who do you support?
Myself, I have still not solidified on a candidate. I have donated a few dollars to both McCain and Huckabee to support them staying in the race. But I could still end up supporting Romney or Giuliani if they convince me that they are ready. So at the end of the debate, I will either be still undecided or firmly in someone's camp.
McCain is the war / foreign policy strong man. He is tough and knowledgeable on international issues. The senator knows you can't trust the UN, but can reach out to allies and speak tough to enemies. His campaign finance legislation and comprehensive immigration reform stand might be too much to overcome though. He has to convince me he learned from those two errors for me to give him my vote.
Giuliani wins if you dislike crime and you are a social moderate. The only way I end up in his camp is after he wins the nomination. I could support a pro-choice candidate, but only after my pro-life candidate lost in the primary. He does great in one-liners and would be an effective leader. I just disagree with him on too many issues.
Huckabee is an attractive candidate that comes off as the everyman. I would be most comfortable with him in a room. He says the right things on border security and spending, but his spending record looks pretty liberal. On the moral issues, he has a strong Christian faith and I think he would lead morally to help the American family. But some of his comments on healthcare have sounded too much like "nanny state" and not enough towards "personal responsibility".
Governor Romney can also lead on the moral issues. Like Huckabee he is founded by his faith in God. I admit, as an evangelical Christian I have a preference towards supporting someone of my faith. But most important to me is that our leader have faith and truly believe in what he exposes. So despite our disagreement on doctrine, I think he could make a great nominee. But he is a little too "slick willy" or "Breck Girl" with his fancy hair cuts and perfectly tailored message. I am right with him on the issues, I just have to decide if I believe him or not.
Fred Thomson is in the race only in the polls. I was in his camp for a month until his campaign started. By the time he had got in, I had checked out. Plus he looks like a dead fish in interviews and debates. As the drive bys say, no gravitas.
So despite the commenting rules, this post is open to blatant support of a candidate. Promote, link, or whatever, just try to keep them short.
Contribute your opinions to the GOP Grassroots Platform 2008. Version 2 coming soon.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Republican Party, What is the US Role in the World?
This post idea comes from a commenter today about the main GOP platform on this site. The anonymous writer makes a good case for the conservative position of reducing our role in the world. Fundamentally, I agree that less meddling and financial aid spent abroad is better for US interests and national security. However I also believe that 9-11 changed the world. Because of that date AND escalating terrorism leading up to it; WE ARE CURRENTLY AT WAR WITH A GLOBAL ISLAMIC TERRORIST ideology. The ideology has spawned 100s of dangerous organizations. These organizations are active here, in Europe, and worldwide. They are headquartered and recruited from the sands of the Middle East. Part of the fight will take place there.
How do I put these two opposed items into my world view and a platform I could support for the Republican Party? I guess I have to start by recognizing where we are in history. It is the year 2007 and the US interests are interwoven in the Global economy. US troops are invested throughout the world in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Bosnia and elsewhere. Our bases in Europe are important to NATO and our long-term allies. None of these things are commitments that should end in 2008 with a new President. The platform can't be about isolationism anti-trade or anti-UN. It must be about actionable events.
That leads me to the first part of my proposal, victory in Iraq. Today, we have 130,000+ troops in Iraq who are part of a major war effort. Plus we have invested a large civilian effort towards the goal of Democracy. These efforts have cost lives, treasure, political capital and more. The surge is showing signs of success and the chance for victory. As a party we have to believe the United States is capable of winning. Then we need to choose the Presidential Candidate who will lead to a victory. You simply cannot allow any time lines when considering the long term interests of the US. Like it or not we are at war, we can win. So we must.
Secondly we must understand there are people who want to attack us throughout the world. These small groups can cause unbelievable damage to lives and economies. From Afghanistan to Pakistan to hot spots in Africa or the Philippines. Our troops that actively fight the war on terror must be supported. This is defended in the constitution as providing for a common defense. While our military fights on offense, homeland security must improve domestic intelligence and secure our borders.
Then we must get back to the conservative part of our world view and policies. I suggest starting by modernizing and reducing troop levels at long-term bases and deployments. This includes South Korea, Europe, Japan and anywhere else that reductions can be responsibly made. Simultaneously we must review our financial commitments internationally then re-allocate them domestically or cut spending on failing worldwide charities and programs.
This process must continue at home. US domestic base structure has become a victim of Pork Barrel Spending. Unnecessary bases should be closed or reassigns. Poor performing projects and projects that are no longer necessary need to be cut and funds re-allocated to active war efforts. We have to stop funding the war on short term requests as we recognize the full scope of the fight we have on our hands.
In short, win the wars on terrorism and in Iraq. Fight the war on terrorism throughout the world where it has strongholds and sanctuaries. Then reduce wasteful bureaucracy and spending in the military, state department, and other international organizations.
That is my take on our role for the next President. What do you believe?
How do I put these two opposed items into my world view and a platform I could support for the Republican Party? I guess I have to start by recognizing where we are in history. It is the year 2007 and the US interests are interwoven in the Global economy. US troops are invested throughout the world in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Bosnia and elsewhere. Our bases in Europe are important to NATO and our long-term allies. None of these things are commitments that should end in 2008 with a new President. The platform can't be about isolationism anti-trade or anti-UN. It must be about actionable events.
That leads me to the first part of my proposal, victory in Iraq. Today, we have 130,000+ troops in Iraq who are part of a major war effort. Plus we have invested a large civilian effort towards the goal of Democracy. These efforts have cost lives, treasure, political capital and more. The surge is showing signs of success and the chance for victory. As a party we have to believe the United States is capable of winning. Then we need to choose the Presidential Candidate who will lead to a victory. You simply cannot allow any time lines when considering the long term interests of the US. Like it or not we are at war, we can win. So we must.
Secondly we must understand there are people who want to attack us throughout the world. These small groups can cause unbelievable damage to lives and economies. From Afghanistan to Pakistan to hot spots in Africa or the Philippines. Our troops that actively fight the war on terror must be supported. This is defended in the constitution as providing for a common defense. While our military fights on offense, homeland security must improve domestic intelligence and secure our borders.
Then we must get back to the conservative part of our world view and policies. I suggest starting by modernizing and reducing troop levels at long-term bases and deployments. This includes South Korea, Europe, Japan and anywhere else that reductions can be responsibly made. Simultaneously we must review our financial commitments internationally then re-allocate them domestically or cut spending on failing worldwide charities and programs.
This process must continue at home. US domestic base structure has become a victim of Pork Barrel Spending. Unnecessary bases should be closed or reassigns. Poor performing projects and projects that are no longer necessary need to be cut and funds re-allocated to active war efforts. We have to stop funding the war on short term requests as we recognize the full scope of the fight we have on our hands.
In short, win the wars on terrorism and in Iraq. Fight the war on terrorism throughout the world where it has strongholds and sanctuaries. Then reduce wasteful bureaucracy and spending in the military, state department, and other international organizations.
That is my take on our role for the next President. What do you believe?
Friday, November 16, 2007
Do YOU live in soup line America? I dont.
I just finished watching the democratic debate tonight in Nevada. The thing I found so striking is the way that the candidates view our country. They view it full of problems, poverty, discrimination and despair. There was a point when they talked about all the things Americans worry about every night. As if Americans sit home scared in their beds praying for the federal government to solve their problems.
This is not the America I have lived in for 31 years. I am a small business owner who is clearly middle class. My employees make salaries very close to mine as I sacrifice to get my company to the next level. As a proud Pittsburgh resident, I have lived in the rust belt my entire life. My parents were middle class and I am middle class. Do you know what I see....
...I see opportunity. I see low unemployment. I see Americans indulging in leisure activities and serving their churches and communities. We live in the wealthiest nation in the world with the largest middle class and the fattest lower class in the history of the world.
But I also see people failing. In my own family some people are not living the American dream. However, there is nothing Hillary Clinton can do to help these people. They must help them selves and their families, communities and churches must help them. My friends and family that are not succeeding have themselves to blame. Some are lazy. Others made bad choices. Still others passed on amazing education opportunities or wasted them by being wasted.
How can you listen to that debate and believe anything said by any candidate tonight? All the Democratic party does is promise everything and blame everything else on George Bush. You would think President Bush was the boogie-man. For a bunch of people who talk about being positive, I have never heard more negativity and pessimism.
So I want to know from everyone who reads this. Do you live in soup line America? Is this still a great country or is it one crisis after another?
Please comment
This is not the America I have lived in for 31 years. I am a small business owner who is clearly middle class. My employees make salaries very close to mine as I sacrifice to get my company to the next level. As a proud Pittsburgh resident, I have lived in the rust belt my entire life. My parents were middle class and I am middle class. Do you know what I see....
...I see opportunity. I see low unemployment. I see Americans indulging in leisure activities and serving their churches and communities. We live in the wealthiest nation in the world with the largest middle class and the fattest lower class in the history of the world.
But I also see people failing. In my own family some people are not living the American dream. However, there is nothing Hillary Clinton can do to help these people. They must help them selves and their families, communities and churches must help them. My friends and family that are not succeeding have themselves to blame. Some are lazy. Others made bad choices. Still others passed on amazing education opportunities or wasted them by being wasted.
How can you listen to that debate and believe anything said by any candidate tonight? All the Democratic party does is promise everything and blame everything else on George Bush. You would think President Bush was the boogie-man. For a bunch of people who talk about being positive, I have never heard more negativity and pessimism.
So I want to know from everyone who reads this. Do you live in soup line America? Is this still a great country or is it one crisis after another?
Please comment
Thursday, November 15, 2007
A Republican Position on Gay Marriage
Firstly, it is a valid and reasonable position for an individual to consider homosexuality immoral behavior. As a Christian I believe it to be a choice of action, rather than a people group. This does not make me a homo-phobe or bigot. I do not hate gay people and I certainly do not fear them. I simply believe their actions to be detrimental to themselves and society as a whole. Homosexuality is one of the clearest things defined in the bible as immoral.
A society has every right to encourage certain types of relationships and discourage others. America was founded on the traditional family and should continue to honor and cherish the benefits of having both a father and mother. Men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. Children benefit when they are raised by a family that has both those strengths and weaknesses. To support the ideal family or natural family, there should be no gay marriage and no civil union recognition. There is no right to marry whatever you wish, the marriage laws are exclusively written for the the union of one man to one woman.
The marriage laws intention is to strengthen the organization that makes America great, the traditional family. Extending it to homosexual couples has no societal benefit, so it should not be done. This includes creating a "civil union" law that gives marriage benefits under a different name. Instead the Republican party should work on laws to further support the traditional family.
I propose;
This post is one element of the Grassroots Conservative Republican Platform 2008. To contribute to this effort, please comment on this post and help shape this platform. Send the link to your friends and lets take our party back to the conservative principals that lead President Reagan and that were the key to President Bush's victory in the election of 2000.
A society has every right to encourage certain types of relationships and discourage others. America was founded on the traditional family and should continue to honor and cherish the benefits of having both a father and mother. Men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. Children benefit when they are raised by a family that has both those strengths and weaknesses. To support the ideal family or natural family, there should be no gay marriage and no civil union recognition. There is no right to marry whatever you wish, the marriage laws are exclusively written for the the union of one man to one woman.
The marriage laws intention is to strengthen the organization that makes America great, the traditional family. Extending it to homosexual couples has no societal benefit, so it should not be done. This includes creating a "civil union" law that gives marriage benefits under a different name. Instead the Republican party should work on laws to further support the traditional family.
I propose;
- Eliminate welfare benefits that aid single mothers over married families
- Provide a "homemaker tax credit" for married couples with one income and one spouse at home with the children or child
- Support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man to one woman so that it is protected nationwide for the future of America
This post is one element of the Grassroots Conservative Republican Platform 2008. To contribute to this effort, please comment on this post and help shape this platform. Send the link to your friends and lets take our party back to the conservative principals that lead President Reagan and that were the key to President Bush's victory in the election of 2000.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
How can the GOP win in 2008? Cut the Pork
This part of the platform is very simple. Stop pork barrel spending dead. John McCain and some other Republican candidates are perfectly positioned to embarrass incumbent Democrats and Republicans by exposing the wasteful pork projects being approved by Congress. As a party, we must end the system that rewards Senators and House members for bringing home the bacon with local pork barrel spending. If we can convince the American people we will end some of this ridiculousness, we will win lots of votes from the center.
There is still a center in America. It is occupied by citizens who don't care about the everyday squabbling of the two parties in Washington. They tune in every four years to select the candidate that they believe to be less full of $4it. By exposing all the pork in every bill from now through November 2008, the Republican candidate and party can show the American people what a joke the Democratic congress is. Particularly with all their promises of transparency and fiscal responsibility.
Make no mistake, some Republican hypocricy on spending will need to be exposed too. This makes it even more effective for the platform and our eventual candidate. Plus if you are fighting for pork barrel spending in congress, then you are no conservative. The federal government has been used and abused by local politicians and unless it stops our spending priorities will continue to be a mess at the federal level.
So to be an effective leader on pork barrel spending and earmarks, the Republican candidate has to first promise to publicize all the pork in every bill congress passes. Next the candidate should promise never to use pork when negotiating a bill. Bills need to be negotiated on their merits or not passed. The candidate should also promise to review all pork spending top to bottom in the federal government and the money saved should be invested on another priority of the candidate. Every dollar saved from pork will go to X. Whether X be education, health care, tax cuts or whatever. Show the American people that the wasteful projects can be re-allocated and the dollars better used.
This is a case any true conservative should be able to make. Some of these projects are such a far reach for the federal government they will be laughable. Any voter can understand how simple ending this practice should be.
This post is one element of the Grassroots Conservative Republican Platform 2008. To contribute to this effort, please comment on this post and help shape this platform. Send the link to your friends and lets take our party back to the conservative principals that lead President Reagan and that were the key to President Bush's victory in the election of 2000.
There is still a center in America. It is occupied by citizens who don't care about the everyday squabbling of the two parties in Washington. They tune in every four years to select the candidate that they believe to be less full of $4it. By exposing all the pork in every bill from now through November 2008, the Republican candidate and party can show the American people what a joke the Democratic congress is. Particularly with all their promises of transparency and fiscal responsibility.
Make no mistake, some Republican hypocricy on spending will need to be exposed too. This makes it even more effective for the platform and our eventual candidate. Plus if you are fighting for pork barrel spending in congress, then you are no conservative. The federal government has been used and abused by local politicians and unless it stops our spending priorities will continue to be a mess at the federal level.
So to be an effective leader on pork barrel spending and earmarks, the Republican candidate has to first promise to publicize all the pork in every bill congress passes. Next the candidate should promise never to use pork when negotiating a bill. Bills need to be negotiated on their merits or not passed. The candidate should also promise to review all pork spending top to bottom in the federal government and the money saved should be invested on another priority of the candidate. Every dollar saved from pork will go to X. Whether X be education, health care, tax cuts or whatever. Show the American people that the wasteful projects can be re-allocated and the dollars better used.
This is a case any true conservative should be able to make. Some of these projects are such a far reach for the federal government they will be laughable. Any voter can understand how simple ending this practice should be.
This post is one element of the Grassroots Conservative Republican Platform 2008. To contribute to this effort, please comment on this post and help shape this platform. Send the link to your friends and lets take our party back to the conservative principals that lead President Reagan and that were the key to President Bush's victory in the election of 2000.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Winning the War on Terror
The most important part of the Republican Platform in 2008 must be winning the war on terror. Clearly we are in a time of history when a very small number of people can do an increasing amount of damage. As a society we have to find a way to protect ourselves from one crazy nut or a culture of murder and intimidation. The radical Islamists seek to rule the Middle East and destroy Western society for our lack of morals. Yet in their moral judgment killing innocent people and stoning rape victims earns them the favor of their god.
To win the war on terror the Republican party must first define the struggle clearly for the American people. President Bush has tried and started this process, but the next President must accomplish the goal of explaining how big of a threat the entire civilized world faces. We must stand up and say that some cultures and ways of life are better than others. There is good and evil. They are embodied in the difference between western civilization and the theocracy of globalist jihad. We are on the right side and we must win.
Once we define the fight, we must defeat our enemy. First on the many battlefields in Iraq, Afghanistan, against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Al Qaeda in Western Pakistan, the mullahs of Iran, and even Hamas in Gaza. If you preach the destruction of Israel and a global Islamic nation, then you are no friend of ours and you cannot be a part of the global economy or community.
So the Republican Candidate should promise these actions (in no particular order)
- Deliver one final crushing blow to the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. Once achieved, reduce our troops significantly leaving behind a significant strike force for combat missions plus enough support troops to make our Iraq base a major deterrent for Iran. This base (or bases) will give the Iraqi government the additional strength needed to establish their new government.
- Work with NATO allies and other middle east allies to implement a "surge" in Afghanistan. Finish off the Taliban and the poppy fields so that this government can stand up fully across their entire nation.
- Focus on the Pakistan crisis now unfolding. Safe havens have to be denied and right now that is Waziristan. Whatever government that emerges in Pakistan must deal with their tribal areas quickly, or understand that we will. Action in this part of the world would mean drones, special ops, air power, and casualties. But we are at war and we must fight it where the enemy rests it's head.
- Fight for the rights of women in the middle east. The women are the key. No man or woman desires a life of a subject or 2nd class citizen. This is one of the way our culture is superior to the Islamic culture in the year 2007. If the women are empowered and make a stand, the moderate men will stand with their sisters, mothers and wives.
- Aggressively pursue energy independence as quickly as possible. Start with the immediate by slowly using the strategic oil preserve. We are at war and our enemy is using oil against us. This is why we have the reserve. Move next to the fastest new drilling that can be online in US territories which may mean off coast, Alaska, but also more exploration within the 48 states. Continue with encouraging a national gasoline blend and more refineries to streamline the cost of unleaded gasoline. Next move to the long term solutions of new nuclear power plants, wind and solar power, advanced car technology, etc. Begin forcing energy costs down for the American people and maintaining a policy of low energy prices for the US consumer and economy.
These five things would go a long way towards winning the war on terror. We are in for a long fight, but we can win. We must win. And to win we must have a strategy and sell that strategy to the American people.
This post is one element of the Grassroots Conservative Republican Platform 2008. To contribute to this effort, please comment on this post and help shape this platform. Send the link to your friends and lets take our party back to the conservative principals that lead President Reagan and that were the key to President Bush's victory in the election of 2000.
To win the war on terror the Republican party must first define the struggle clearly for the American people. President Bush has tried and started this process, but the next President must accomplish the goal of explaining how big of a threat the entire civilized world faces. We must stand up and say that some cultures and ways of life are better than others. There is good and evil. They are embodied in the difference between western civilization and the theocracy of globalist jihad. We are on the right side and we must win.
Once we define the fight, we must defeat our enemy. First on the many battlefields in Iraq, Afghanistan, against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Al Qaeda in Western Pakistan, the mullahs of Iran, and even Hamas in Gaza. If you preach the destruction of Israel and a global Islamic nation, then you are no friend of ours and you cannot be a part of the global economy or community.
So the Republican Candidate should promise these actions (in no particular order)
- Deliver one final crushing blow to the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. Once achieved, reduce our troops significantly leaving behind a significant strike force for combat missions plus enough support troops to make our Iraq base a major deterrent for Iran. This base (or bases) will give the Iraqi government the additional strength needed to establish their new government.
- Work with NATO allies and other middle east allies to implement a "surge" in Afghanistan. Finish off the Taliban and the poppy fields so that this government can stand up fully across their entire nation.
- Focus on the Pakistan crisis now unfolding. Safe havens have to be denied and right now that is Waziristan. Whatever government that emerges in Pakistan must deal with their tribal areas quickly, or understand that we will. Action in this part of the world would mean drones, special ops, air power, and casualties. But we are at war and we must fight it where the enemy rests it's head.
- Fight for the rights of women in the middle east. The women are the key. No man or woman desires a life of a subject or 2nd class citizen. This is one of the way our culture is superior to the Islamic culture in the year 2007. If the women are empowered and make a stand, the moderate men will stand with their sisters, mothers and wives.
- Aggressively pursue energy independence as quickly as possible. Start with the immediate by slowly using the strategic oil preserve. We are at war and our enemy is using oil against us. This is why we have the reserve. Move next to the fastest new drilling that can be online in US territories which may mean off coast, Alaska, but also more exploration within the 48 states. Continue with encouraging a national gasoline blend and more refineries to streamline the cost of unleaded gasoline. Next move to the long term solutions of new nuclear power plants, wind and solar power, advanced car technology, etc. Begin forcing energy costs down for the American people and maintaining a policy of low energy prices for the US consumer and economy.
These five things would go a long way towards winning the war on terror. We are in for a long fight, but we can win. We must win. And to win we must have a strategy and sell that strategy to the American people.
This post is one element of the Grassroots Conservative Republican Platform 2008. To contribute to this effort, please comment on this post and help shape this platform. Send the link to your friends and lets take our party back to the conservative principals that lead President Reagan and that were the key to President Bush's victory in the election of 2000.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
