Sounds like a plan...

RedState.com ^ | May 22, 2008 | Josh Painter

[Josh Painter]

[stravinskyrules]

#5 is a loser. Nukes? nukes? Nukes?

[TomGuy]

5) AMERICAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE THROUGH INCREASED EXPLORATION House Republicans are committed to increasing American energy supplies to lower prices and reduce dependence on Middle Eastern Oil by incentivizing conservation and allowing energy exploration in Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf, as well as the development of cleaner coal technologies and alternative fuels.

Yada yada yada

Just more promises.

Politicians have been 'advocating' these kinds of things since gas prices skyrocketed during the Nixon Administration. 35 years later, and we still haven't seen much effort to break the dependence on foreign oil.

Until they actually act, do something, this is just more empty promises, more yada yada yada.

[NormsRevenge]

It might be useful to publish who the members of the RSC are so that donors can help them and tell the rest of the interlopers to take a hike and support conservative candidates against them in their next primaries.

Good luck to those who do get “it”.

[willgolfforfood]

I'd also like to know how many of them that oppose earmarks just voted for this monstrosity of a farm bill, and then also voted to override the president's veto.

[Josh Painter]

RSC Members List - 110th Congress *

Jeb Hensarling, Chairman (TX-05)
Robert Aderholt (AL-04)
Todd Akin (MO-02)
Rodney Alexander (LA-05)
Michele Bachmann (MN-06)
Spencer Bachus (AL-06)
Gresham Barrett (SC-03)
Roscoe Bartlett (MD-06)
Joe Barton (TX-06)
Brian Bilbray (CA-50)
Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Marsha Blackburn (TN-07)
John Boozman (AR-03)
Kevin Brady (TX-08)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Henry Brown (SC-01)
Vern Buchanan (FL-13)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Dan Burton (IN-05)
Dave Camp (MI-04)
John Campbell (CA-48)
Chris Cannon (UT-03)
Eric Cantor (VA-07)
John Carter (TX-31)
Steve Chabot (OH-01)
Tom Cole (OK-04)
Mike Conaway (TX-11)
Barbara Cubin (WY-At Lg)
John Culberson (TX-07)
David Davis (TN-01)
Geoff Davis (KY-04)
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25)
John Doolittle (CA-04)
Thelma Drake (VA-02)
Mary Fallin (OK-05)
Tom Feeney (FL-24)
Jeff Flake (AZ-06)
Randy Forbes (VA-04)
Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01)
Luis Fortuno (PR)
Virginia Foxx (NC-05)
Trent Franks (AZ-02)
Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Virgil Goode (VA-05)
Bob Goodlatte (VA-06)
Wally Herger (CA-02)
Pete Hoekstra (MI-02)
Duncan Hunter (CA-52)
Bob Inglis (SC-04)
Darrell Issa (CA-49)
Bobby Jindal (LA-01)
Sam Johnson (TX-03)
Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Steve King (IA-05)
Jack Kingston (GA-01)
John Kline (MN-02)
Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Ron Lewis (KY-02)
Frank Lucas (OK-03)
Dan Lungren (CA-03)
Connie Mack (FL-14)
Don Manzullo (IL-16)
Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Michael McCaul (TX-10)
Patrick McHenry (NC-10)
Buck McKeon (CA-25)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05)
Gary Miller (CA-42)
Jeff Miller (FL-01)
Jerry Moran (KS-01)
Marilyn Musgrave (CO-14)
Sue Myrick (NC-09)
Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
Steve Pearce (NM-02)
Mike Pence (IN-06)
Joe Pitts (PA-16)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Tom Price (GA-06)
George Radanovich (CA-19)
Denny Rehberg (MT-At Lg)
Tom Reynolds (NY-26)
Peter Roskam (IL-06)
Ed Royce (CA-40)
Paul Ryan (WI-01)
Bill Sali (ID-01)
Pete Sessions (TX-32)
John Shadegg (AZ-03)
Lamar Smith (TX-21)
Mark Souder (IN-03)
Cliff Stearns (FL-06)
John Sullivan (OK-01)
Tom Tancredo (CO-06)
Mac Thornberry (TX-13)
Michael Turner (OH-03)
Tim Walberg (MI-07)
Zach Wamp (TN-03)
Dave Weldon (FL-15)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-08)
Joe Wilson (SC-02)
Robert Wittman (VA-01)

* Partial list

http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/

[zeestephen]

Not one word about immigration?

Oooh, brave Conservatives.

[WesternPacific]

Too little too late.

[RicocheT]

This plan is not specific enough. On taxes the GOP should say they oppose what the Democrats will do—no increase in the capital gains rate, keep the present Bush tax cuts, end inheritance taxes, index the AMT to not hit middle class payers, keep the child care credit (Dems want to cut it in half) etc.

On energy drill ANWAR, in the Gulf and off both east and west coasts, plus allow refineries and nuclear plants to be built.

Others can add to my list as I have run out of stuff.

[WesternPacific]

Their grand plans seem to be promoted, made law, and then not funded.

[onedoug]

...zzzzzz....

[tueffelhunden]

All I know is, the Republican Party is done, stick a fork in it, have a mass exodus of conservatives FROM that party and let’s form a new one or join an existing 3rd party and start over.

10 to 15 years we can be back in the Majority without the baggage of the likes of Mclame.

[Josh Painter]

“Too little too late.”

Aren’t you the actor who played C3PO in the Star Wars movies? “We’re doomed!”

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

More empty platitudes. Why can’t Republicans just go for the jugular? Limit government, completely reform the tax system, secure the borders, build nukes and drill for oil, and most of the problems would end right there. Notice how they have to explain each proposal with a detailed paragraph. It’s the same socialism, just repackaged under a different party.

[Josh Painter]

Conservatives have too much invested in the GOP to throw it all away. It is, after all, the party of Goldwater, Reagan and Thompson. When things looked darkest for the party, Barry Goldwater in his day and Fred Thompson 44 years later never considered - not for even a brief moment - turning away from it. Nor did Ronald Reagan, who went one step further. On February 6, 1977, he spoke to conservatives gathered for the 4th Annual CPAC Convention and not only rejected the notion of abandoning the Grand Old Party, but shared his vision of a New Republican Party:

What will be the political vehicle by which the majority can assert its rights?

I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends -- perhaps including some of you here tonight -- who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.

I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over. Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party...

Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society.

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.

Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs.

Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.

Conservatives are understandably disgusted with how moderates have let the GOP drift far off the course that Reagan charted for it. Some have opined that the Republican Party has outlived its usefulness and that it's time to start that new party. They are only half right. We have seen numerous third parties formed, but none have had much of an impact in the modern era, with the exception of Ross Perot's venture into political pary building. And we all know how that turned out.
The trouble with third parties is infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. It takes a lot of time and treasure to build a third party, and you end up with an infrastructure which is still inferior to that of the GOP. Winning a national election with a third party is just a pipe dream, and even winning any significant number of state and local offices through a third party is an extremely difficult proposition.
What is needed is a third party which is structurally independent of the Republican Party, yet still operationally connected to it - a third party which isn't really a third party. Such a political animal exists. It is the Conservative Party of New York State - CPNYS.

CPNYS was born in 1962 when Empire State conservatives became fed up with the liberalism of New York's Republican Party, controlled as it was by the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the GOP. National Review's William F. Buckley and his brother James were both Conservative Party candidates, with Bill running unsuccessfully for mayor of New York City in 1965 and James winning election to the U.S. Senate in 1970.

CPNYS endorses Republican candidates for office, but only those candidates it deems to be sufficiently conservative. The Conservative Party witholds its support for GOP candidates it believes to be too liberal, as it consistently did whenever Rudy Giuliani ran for public office. In this way, CPNYS has a considerable influence over the Republican Party in New York State. Consider this: No Republican has won statewide office in New York without Conservative Party support in the last 33 years.

Now that's a track record many conservative organizations would love to be able to boast of. And there's no shortage of such organizations which try to exert a conservative influence over the GOP. But none has been able to match the success of the Conservative Party of New York State.

Now imagine, if you will, a functional Conservative Party in each of the other 49 states with the New York party as the model for the others...

http://reaganconservativejournal.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-save-gop.html

[greatvikingone]

#4 - More Big Brother

[WesternPacific]

Funny, Mr. McCain.

[Windflier]

I see you’re not getting a whole lot of love in this room tonight, Jay.

Well, count me in with Ronald Reagan. I also believe that it would be a strategic error of historical magnitude for conservatives to abandon their home party and splinter off into several weak, and ineffective groups.

Reagan was right. We conservatives need to band together alright; just within our home party. We first need to fight the interlopers in our own house, then take the fight to the real enemy. We’re not going to do that effectively from a collection of new, and still budding political organizations.

My soul is stirred, reading the forming statements of new groups such as FALCON ( http://falconparty.com/ ), but it’s my feeling that we conservatives need to exert that fervor and principled determination through, and from the natural foundations of our existing and well-established party.

I’m happy to see that a core of strong-willed conservatives not only still exists within our elected party members, but is actively doing what they can to put forth our vision and our will within the congress.

I’ve got to agree with some of the other Freepers that the platform is a little on the vague side, but I’m not complaining. At least it’s incrementalism in the right direction.

Thanks for letting us know about this.

WF

[tueffelhunden]

I used to agree with your premise Josh, I no longer can.

After 32 years of “just support us one more time and we’ll do X”, I’m done.

We get the same old promises, the same old BS election after election after election.

Now if someone like Duncan Hunter is suddenly made the President of the RNC, I might change my mind. But I don’t see that happening.

For now I’m content to wait and see how things develop. But the Republican party has pooped on this conservative voter for the last time.

I want results, and if the cowards can’t produce them. I’ll support a candidate who can. Even if that means going to a 3rd party.

[Tolik]

tueffelhunden, I still prefer Josh’s point.

To restate an obvious: To have an influence, you have to have a voice. More voices together are heard better than many single voices. (Isn’t that why all professionals unite in associations to increase their lobbying power before local, state and federal governments?). Unless some cataclysmic events happen (and G-d save me from any bloody revolutions, I don’t want to “live in interesting times”, thank you very much!), we have a working democratic process with all its pluses and minuses.

It just happened historically that there are only 2 major parties in America. SO, you need to make one of them to better suit you (and from what you are saying, me too). A cohesive strong faction within party, or a closely allied third party, “a third party which isn’t really a third party” like the Conservative Party of NY - are better mechanisms than a totally new 3rd party that is doomed to lose if it stands on its own. (It is a matter of fact, not emotions). As Josh said, you need an organization - infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.

Without such organization, all the dissatisfaction we have with the GOP nomination and general direction of the Republican party is just lots of hot air. If we all remove ourselves from the political process, who is going to win? How is our point of view is going to be better advanced? I don’t see Republican party disintegrating or magically transforming itself into a conservative party if we all just leave into nowhere.